Financial Regulation

Lord Watson of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of the collapse of Enron and the Allied Irish Bank fraud case, new and additional financial regulations for public companies may be required in the United Kingdom.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both of the cases referred to took place in the United States, where financial regulation and accounting requirements are significantly different from those which apply in the United Kingdom. But it would be unwise to assume that similar problems could not arise here, and right that UK regulators should review their arrangements carefully in the light of these events.
	The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 27th February that the DTI and the Treasury are jointly setting up a group to oversee and co-ordinate the UK response to the accounting and auditing issues raised by Enron in particular. She also announced a review to examine the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors of British companies.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am sure he would agree that the role of the non-executive director lies really at the heart of the credibility of corporate governance. The days have sadly long gone by where the presence of a "Lord on the board" was a guarantee of the credibility of that corporate governance. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government should back the proposals of Professor Myers to formalise regular meetings between institutional investors and non-executive directors without executive directors being present? Secondly, can he assure the House that he will succeed in persuading Sir Peter Davies to head the Government's review of the role of non-executive directors, or find someone of equal status before too long?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, never having been offered the opportunity to be a "Lord on the board", other than on the board of my own company, I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to comment on the noble Lord's first point. As he knows, Professor Myers works very closely with the Government. I am sure that that will continue. We take his views very seriously indeed. As to the chairmanship of the group, I can only say that discussions are proceeding.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no Gadarene rush to further regulation? The new regulatory system in the City is less than three months old and many firms are struggling with the burden of having to implement it. Does the Minister agree that if we produce more regulation we will be in danger of impacting on the competitive position of the City of London at a very critical time in the formation of a European capital market? In asking the question, I declare an interest as the chairman of an investment bank working in the City.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be very careful. Those who express great confidence in the integrity of the City of London are faced time and again with shocks which they said could never happen and then do. Barings Bank is one example; and there have been many others. The Barings example is close to the Allied Irish Bank example. So I would be cautious about ruling out further or different regulation as the outcome of the review to which I have just referred.

Lord Paul: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether it is really possible for non-executive directors to find out about any mistakes during the little time that they spend with the company?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why we are having a review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. In looking at the list of non-executive posts, which a number of people—not necessarily Lords, indeed probably largely not Lords—hold, I agree with my noble friend Lord Paul. I find it difficult to see how they could spend enough time. Surely it is also a question of skill, of experience and of access to the information which is necessary to carry out a non-executive director's job.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, in reviewing the role of non-executive directors, will the Government look again at the often quoted doctrine that the responsibilities in law and in fact of all directors on a board are equal when patently they are not? Non-executive directors are in a very different position from executive ones. Indeed, the difference between them could be regarded as the difference between referees and players. To regard them as the same often has most unfortunate consequences.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would qualify a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, says. Non-executive directors do have particular roles as members of remuneration committees and audit committees. To that extent, the referee role, as opposed to the player role, is properly recognised. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has a valid point. That is one of the issues which I have no doubt will be debated by the review group.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that auditors are prohibited from being directors of the companies for which they carry out an audit, and vice versa, does the Minister think that auditors should be equally prohibited from being consultants to companies which they are auditing—except of course if the audit is in relation to tax matters, which are relevant? If he thinks that there is any value in that proposition, will the Government consider doing anything about it? He may of course think that there is no value.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, on the face of it that seems to be a proper and helpful comment. So often these days consultants perform similar roles to those of directors, often without having the same responsibilities, which makes the matter even worse. One matter which shocked me about Enron was the extent to which staff members and partners of the audit firm then went on immediately afterwards to become directors of the company that they had audited. I assume that that is also a matter that we shall be looking at.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the relationship is in timing between the inquiry that he referred to, which I think is welcomed in all parts of the House, and the reform of company law, which is much mooted and to which the Government are committed?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, indeed, my Lords, we are committed to that. Last year, we published an enormous volume on the reform of company law. A Bill team is working on company law reform at present. As is well known, I cannot say when that will gain parliamentary time, but there will of course be extensive consultation with at least draft clauses being available before any Bill is presented to Parliament. But other things are going on at the same time. The Financial Services Authority is undertaking a review of listing rules which is expected to take between one-and-a-half and two years. These things take too long.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I speak as a "Lord on three boards". Is not one problem that executive directors choose as non-executive directors people with whom they feel comfortable and whom they sense may not—how shall I put it—rock the boat? Does the Minister agree that far more important than regulation and non-executive directors is the whole ethos within which the City, in particular, carries on its tasks?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord was not chosen by the executive directors of those companies because he is amenable to their wishes. Knowing him, I am sure that he would not be. The Question raises important issues, for example, the role of institutional shareholders. Should they not have a say in who the non-executive directors are? Those are all matters of great importance. I think that we shall have an opportunity to debate them on a Labour debate in the near future.

Prison Visitors' Centres

The Earl of Listowel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recommendations of the recent report by the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Groups, Just Visiting: A review of the role of prison visiting centres, and to the significant decline in the number of prison visits since 1997.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we welcome the report. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for prisons, Beverley Hughes, spoke at its launch on 30th January. We want prisoners to maintain close family ties in order to improve their chances of resettlement on release. We accept that there is much room for improvement in the provision of visitors' centres and will consider the report's recommendations.
	We share the noble Earl's concerns about the decline in the number of visitors to prisons and last year undertook research on it. We are now consulting the Federation of Prisoners' Family Support Groups about the research findings in order better to understand the underlying reasons and what action, if any, is needed.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Does he therefore endorse the statement by Martin Narey, the Director-General of Her Majesty's Prison Service, that,
	"A stable, supportive family . . . is a key factor in preventing re-offending on release"?
	Is the Minister aware that last week on average it took me 20 minutes or four telephone calls to obtain the prison social booking line at London prisons? It has been especially difficult at Pentonville and Brixton. What will the Minister do to improve the booking times at those prisons?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we certainly endorse the statement made by Martin Narey, Director-General of the Prison Service. There are difficulties booking visits, there is no question about that. We are considering issuing good practice guidelines for prison establishments and upgrading the information technology and telephones used to book visits. That is simply one factor in the decline of visits per prisoner.
	The overall number of visits has not declined during recent years, but of course the prison population has risen while the number of visits has stayed the same, so there has been a relative decline. There are serious issues with regard to booking visits and I regret the difficulties that the noble Earl has experienced—which are no different from those of families. We are trying to address them.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that barely half of all prisons in England and Wales have a well-resourced and managed visitors' centre, many of which struggle for funding? Those centres play an intrinsic role in the visits process. I declare an interest as someone who started the first visitors' centre—at Pentonville, as it happens—30 years ago. Can the Minister clarify the Government's policy for the development of such centres, as it is so well established that family contact—and therefore visits—play a vital role in the re-establishment of prisoners on release?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is crucial that every prison has a visitors' centre. In years gone by, there was nowhere; people waited for their visits in the pouring rain. Currently, 77 out of 123 male establishments have visitors' centres—that is 63 per cent. Eight out of 14 female establishments have visitors' centres—that is 57 per cent. So the proportion is slightly more than a half, but there is a considerable way to go. Any new prison built will automatically be kitted out, as it were, with a visitors' centre outside the prison but within its curtilage—usually near the car park.
	Currently, work is under way to provide a visitors' centre in Liverpool Walton, which I visited briefly last summer. I think that it is the largest prison in the country, holding about 1,200 prisoners. A visitors' centre is being provided there. For all the reasons given in the report, it is crucial that every prison should have a visitors' centre.

Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, on the figures that he has just given, the percentage of visitors' centres in women's prisons, where they are especially important, is disappointing? Are the Government making any special efforts not just to get the numbers up from 57 per cent, but to get them up to 100 per cent?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is a fact that a slightly smaller percentage of women's prisons have visitors' centres. One would have thought that, given the explosion in the female prison population and the need for contact with family and children, there would be more visitors' centres in women's prisons than in male prisons. It is probably caused by the explosion in the female prison population and the number of female prisons.
	I will see that the importance of the matter is urged on the Prison Service. Such centres are, generally, provided and managed by the voluntary sector. We want that to continue, but we must consider the resources that the Prison Service can put in, particularly where we are revamping and rebranding prisons. There have, of course, been some changes in the use of buildings recently, and I shall make it my business to ensure that buildings changed from male to female prisons—or vice versa—include a visitors' centre.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in his answer to the previous question, the Minister referred to the voluntary organisations. I am a former, very active member of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, a body that, as the Minister will know, has been deeply involved with prisons. Does it concern the Minister that WRVS is pulling out of the work that it has done in prisons and re-defining where its work will be?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given me information of which I was unaware. In fact, when I was discussing the matter, reference was made to the magnificent work of the WRVS in the prisons. I was unaware that the service was pulling out, and I shall seek further and better particulars about that.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the explosion in the number of women in prison. He may be aware of the scheme that was running at Holloway prison, where the families of prisoners were able to come in and spend the whole day with their mother in a slightly more normal environment. I understand that that scheme has been suspended. Can the Minister say for how long it will be suspended? Can he assure the House that it will be reinstated as soon as possible?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know why it has been suspended at Holloway, but one of the great recent advances in penal policy has been the enabling of families, particularly children, to spend a day at the establishment with their parent, outside the regime, perhaps in the gymnasium or the catering facilities. There has been a big increase in the number of people who are able to spend a day at the prison on a full family visit. I do not know what has happened at Holloway. I shall find out about it.

Schools Selection

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many local education authorities there are in England; how many have selection procedures for entry to secondary schools; and what action the Government are taking to end all selection procedures.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are 150 local education authorities in England, and 164 secondary schools in 36 authorities select all their pupils by academic ability. No new selection by academic ability can be introduced, and we have put in place procedures enabling parents locally to decide whether they wish to end existing grammar school selection.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many government supporters are deeply disappointed by the slow progress on the policy of ending selection altogether? Does not experience over many years show that not only is selection at 11 or the use of the 11-plus examination inaccurate; it also causes tremendous problems in later years? Is the Minister aware that in recent opinion polls parents have shown overwhelming opposition to selection at 11?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern about selection at 11. It is important to recognise that children develop in different ways and at different times. I have long worried about the concept of deciding at 11 that a child has failed. However, we are committed to allowing parents the opportunity to decide. We have put in place a system which, we believe, is as fair as possible and allows parents to make that choice. We have no plans to amend that process.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, contrary to what she said in her Answer, under the wide powers in Clause 2 of the Education Bill, which will receive its Second Reading in this House on Monday, it will be possible to expand selection so long as it is linked with innovation and rising standards?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I look forward to debating the Education Bill with the noble Baroness. The power to innovate, which is part of the Bill, is about being able to remove legal impediments to innovation in schools. The example that I shall use in our debates is that of a school that might wish to introduce a continental-style timetable. We are committed to ensuring that we do not allow selection by ability. That will not change.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that only about 7 per cent of specialist schools use their ability to select up to 10 per cent of their pupils by aptitude, whatever that is? The Government might as well scrap that provision. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that small percentage? It shows that most specialist schools are committed to the comprehensive principle, even if the Government are not.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are committed to the comprehensive principle. As the noble Baroness will know, there are 685 specialist schools, of which 30 are grammar schools. Those that select would perhaps have selected under other systems; they are normally former grant-maintained schools. Indeed, some of those schools have decided not to select by aptitude because it does not suit them to do so.
	The ability to select is there for schools which believe that it will enable them to develop their specialism on top of what they do in the national curriculum. The obvious examples, which I have cited many times in your Lordships' House, are concerned with PE, sport and performing arts. We do not support selection by ability.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister cast her mind beyond the insular attitude of her party and consider that, across the Channel, where there is selection, people choose schools related to the abilities of children—vocational, academic and so on? Does the Minister recognise that some children benefit from being at an academic school and some benefit from being at a vocational school? Why not abandon the past and allow that the grammar schools have contributed? The Government's real problem is that they are not prepared to face the issue of vocational schools. Cannot the Minister break away from the ideological battles of the past?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree with me that one of the difficulties with his question is how we define the words "academic" and "vocational". Some of our great vocational trades and professions—medicine, for example—require high academic standards. They are false labels.
	In the past, the difficulty was that we chose a system that decided that, at 11, somebody was better than somebody else. We have no wish to return to that; we wish to ensure that children and young people can follow the career route to their profession or trade that best enables them to achieve their full potential. That is best done, not in a system that says to children of 11 that their route has been chosen but in one that allows them to have a breadth of experience, recognising that in the past we have used false labels.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, for most people—if not all—in local authorities who decided things for the education committees that they managed, it was not a question of something being better or worse? There was a recognition that children are different, one from another, and that a good education service ought to cater for those who are different and more academic than others.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise the excellent work that people have done on education committees for many years. I make no criticism of them for that work. However, there is no doubt in my mind—and I went to a grammar school—that, whether the intent was there or not, those from my area who attended schools that were not grammar schools did not receive the kind of education that I did: it was different. For many of them, it was considered to be not only different but lesser than the education I received.
	I accept that children must have the ability to explore different educational paths. Some will end up doing sciences, as opposed to languages; for others, art or music will be foremost in their mind. We are not saying that all children are the same; we are saying quite the opposite. One of the big thrusts behind the Education Bill is to recognise that children and schools are different. That is a given. We are saying that no one child is better than another with that distinction being made at the age of 11.

Gujarat: Safety of British Nationals

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What efforts are being made to protect British citizens in the Indian state of Gujarat.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am greatly saddened at the deaths in both communities. We are in close contact with the Indian authorities which are responsible for the safety of British nationals. They have offered escorts for those stranded. Our staff in Mumbai are doing all they can to assist those in difficulty and to seek information on those still missing. They maintain lists of those who register. Our travel advice provides current information for families in the UK.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I want to take this opportunity to thank the FCO staff, the resident clerks, our High Commission in New Delhi and the Consulate in Mumbai for the help and assistance that they have provided to the British families and their relatives in India. What efforts are being made to find the two British citizens, Shakil and Saeed Dawood, who have been missing for six days and whose driver and cousin were murdered in front of them?
	Is my noble friend aware that yesterday's Independent contained a report that the BJP leaders, like Deepak Patel, led mobs of terrorists who attacked and killed 42 people? Will the Government consider proscribing VHP and other terrorist groups on the list of terrorist organisations as they have attacked and murdered innocent British citizens in Gujarat?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments about the staff of the FCO. In such circumstances, the work of our consular staff comes to the attention of the public but they work constantly on such issues even when there is no crisis.
	My noble friend asked specifically about what is being done to help the two British citizens who are missing. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities on that. We have pressed them and they have assured us that they are doing all that they can to find those citizens.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that communal violence, from whichever source, perpetrated on the religious beliefs of any individual is unacceptable? Will she support the action of the Chief Minister of Gujarat and the Prime Minister of India—I have been in contact with the Chief Minister who is trying to bring the situation under control—and agree that they are the best people to assist with the situation?
	Furthermore, does she consider it appropriate that rather than focusing on communal issues as regards this matter, it is in the interests of all communities to work through the existing channels to try to bring a semblance of peace in that region?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and we appreciate all the efforts of the Indian Government to restore calm. On 1st March national leaders of the main political parties issued a joint appeal for calm, and deployment of the army has helped to bring the rioting under control.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in contacting the Indian authorities about the horrific sectarian killings, particularly in Ahmedabad and Godhra and about the difficult and long-standing issues surrounding the Ayodhya Temple site, will the Minister ensure not only that we look after the interests of British nationals, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, rightly urged, but that we make absolutely clear to the Indian authorities that they have our full support in dealing with these matters in an even-handed way?
	Furthermore, does the Minister agree that any suggestion that the authorities, or arms of the authorities, might have stood aside to allow mob violence in the name of revenge is completely wrong and that any such suggestion will be brought down by the Indian authorities? Will the Minister indicate that the authorities will have our support in an even-handed approach?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is precisely why we have appreciated the efforts which have been made by the Indian Government to restore calm. It is very important that as regards the violence in Gujarat the Indian authorities are seen to be doing all that they can. We were very pleased that the national leaders of the main political parties issued a joint appeal. In the context of the communal violence, that statement was most important.

Lord Paul: My Lords, what has happened in Gujarat is a great tragedy and we condemn everyone who is responsible for it. As some of the comments made in this country have unnecessarily divided the community, will the Minister ensure that that is not allowed to happen?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Paul. I am aware that in one or two cases what has happened in Gujarat has spread to the streets of the United Kingdom. We are extremely concerned about that and we shall do all that we can to ensure that that does not occur.

Business of the House: Private Notice Question

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for allowing me to ask whether he would mind elaborating on his reason for refusing a Private Notice Question this afternoon concerning the sale of the Treasury silver. I thank him for that. A Treasury spokesman is quoted in a newspaper today as saying that the sale is going ahead.
	I am sure that the Leader of the House remembers that on 29th October the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
	"surely it is proper that any decision should be announced to Parliament rather than to anyone else".
	The noble and learned Lord will also recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had correctly expressed,
	"the view of the House that the items should be withdrawn from sale".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1174.]
	If the Treasury is so anxious to achieve savings and efficiency, as its spokesman says today, why does it not look to the administrative expenses of the Chancellor's own department which are due to rise, on his own budget forecasts, not by £100,000, the value of the silver, but by £500 million over the next four years?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the procedure for Private Notice Questions is well known to your Lordships. It is set out at paragraph 4.101 of the Companion:
	"A private notice question (PNQ) gives Members of the House the opportunity to raise urgent matters on any sitting day".
	This matter is not urgent. Indeed, the basis on which the Question was put—and as always I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—was a cutting from the Daily Telegraph, a copy of which the noble Lord gave to me.
	I have made it plain—and I hope that the House approves—that my inclination is always to assume that PNQs should be accepted. I believe that I have faithfully abided by that.
	When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, sought a Private Notice Question to be heard on 29th October last year, the proposed sale was the next day. It seemed to me—and I know that the House agreed—that it was right to give time for the noble and learned Lord to raise that matter. It was raised.
	Since then, my noble friend Lord McIntosh has answered a number of questions, one being as long ago as 12th February. That is the best part of a month ago. One of his answers on 12th February to, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was that,
	"the Government concluded in the light of representations that open-market sale was not appropriate in that case".
	That is the Privy Council silver. He continued:
	"Arrangements are being made for a sale confined to institutions willing to display the items to the UK public".—[Official Report, 12/2/02; col. WA139.]
	I am acting here only, I hope, in the interests of the House. Having looked at the Companion it seemed to me that this matter could not conceivably be described as urgent. It seemed to me right in the interests of the House that we adhere to the proper procedures and I hope that the House will support me.

Scottish Parliament (Referendum) Bill  [HL]

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on whether the Scottish Parliament should continue to exist or be abolished. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Palmer.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Kyoto Protocol

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"Following agreement at the European Community Environment Council on Monday, I am very pleased to announce that the Government have today laid the Kyoto Protocol before both Houses of Parliament. This significant step begins the formal process of UK ratification of this hugely important protocol.
	"This House is aware of the leading role that the Government have always played in the fight against climate change and, in particular, the pivotal role played by my right honourable friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the original negotiations on the protocol in Kyoto. We have maintained that lead in subsequent negotiations and we are making strong progress with implementing a strategic and innovative programme of action to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. I firmly believe that the UK, as well as the rest of world, has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on.
	"The deal that I helped to secure, first in Bonn and then in Marrakesh last year, was the latest in a series of major political achievements and paved the way for ratification. Since then, the EU has set an aim for the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force in time for the World Summit on Sustainable Development at the end of August. The summit will mark the 10th anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit, which set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in the first place. Although we do not expect or wish climate change as such to feature prominently on the summit's agenda, entry into force of the protocol before it takes place will demonstrate beyond doubt the world's commitment to taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.
	"The Environment Council's agreement on Monday to the Council Decision on European Community ratification and to the EU "bubble" was a significant milestone. This needed to happen first, so that the reduction targets agreed politically by each member state in 1998 became legally fixed. I am delighted with the outcome of the Council meeting which followed detailed and, at times, sensitive negotiations. It means that all member states are now able to complete their own national ratification procedures, and that the EC and its member states will be the first of the key developed countries to ratify the protocol.
	"This Government are certainly wasting no time in ensuring that the UK ratifies the protocol as soon as possible. Today's event marks the start of our process. The protocol will be before Parliament for the next 21 sitting days. At the end of this period, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will sign the UK's instrument of ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will deposit its instrument with the UN Depository at same time as the European Community and other member states. We are aiming to do this by June at the latest.
	"UK ratification of the Kyoto Protocol sends an important message to the world that we are committed to the protocol and to tackling climate change. It reaffirms the Government's pledge to meet their environmental objectives. And it meets our manifesto commitment to provide leadership abroad and to work for international agreement on climate change.
	"I hope that countries not yet committed to ratifying will follow the EU's lead. The House will be aware that the US has recently announced proposals for domestic action to tackle climate change. We welcome the fact that President Bush accepts climate change as a serious problem and has increased support for climate science and for climate-friendly innovation. However, our analysis of his proposals suggests that US greenhouse gas emissions will be around 25 per cent higher in 2010 than in 1990. This contrasts quite starkly with the 7 per cent reduction to which the US had originally agreed under Kyoto. We continue to believe that the Kyoto Protocol represents the only workable option for the international community to take forward serious action on climate change, and we hope that the US will re-engage with this process in the future. It is of course extremely important that we maintain a constructive dialogue with the US on climate change and we will seek to establish a process through which this can be achieved.
	"UK ratification of the protocol will mean that we become legally bound by the target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. The UK's climate change programme sets out a range of policies that could reduce emissions by 23 per cent by 2010, well in excess of our Kyoto target and setting us in good stead for future reductions. The programme, therefore, also addresses the Government's ambitious domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
	"Our climate change programme is providing a strategic focus for action. It is stimulating positive action by UK businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low carbon economy. And it is implementing a series of innovative and creative policies to ensure that the UK cuts its emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
	"Let me run through the key policies in the programme. First, we have established the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by a government incentive of £215 million over five years. The scheme is due to "go live" early next month and is one of our major priorities. Emissions trading is a cost-effective way of making a low carbon future a reality, and by pioneering this scheme, we intend the City of London to become the world centre for emissions trading.
	"We have set a target to provide 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010, backed up by government funding of at least £250 million over the next three years. We also have a target to at least double the UK capacity of combined heat and power by 2010. We will be publishing our draft CHP strategy shortly, with a range of measures to achieve the target.
	"We have put in place the climate change levy package that will help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business. We established the Carbon Trust which will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective, low carbon technologies.
	"There are a range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector. And at European Union level, we secured voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent, backed up by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel efficient, low-emission cars.
	"Finally, the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport will address projected emissions growth in this key sector.
	"The programme also looks at what we might need to do to adapt to the effects of climate change in the UK. The Government are taking early action to identify adaptation priorities and we are supporting the introduction of adaptation strategies on the ground through the UK Climate Impacts Programme.
	"In addition, the programme begins to put in place policies to reduce emissions in the longer term—beyond 2012. We know that Kyoto, while important in itself, is only a first step, and that much deeper cuts in emissions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The Government are determined to continue towards a low carbon economy in a way that benefits both the environment and UK industry. This is one reason why we commissioned the recent PIU energy report that we are now considering, and to which we will respond later this year.
	"I would like to finish by re-stating the Government's belief that meeting climate change targets will not only be good for the environment, but also presents new opportunities for businesses to improve energy efficiency, to cut costs and to get ahead of their international competitors by developing cleaner technologies and moving into new markets. It presents new job opportunities for people living and working in the UK. And it offers more choice for the consumer. We want to make sure that the UK makes the most it possibly can of these opportunities, as well as making a strong and determined contribution to the global fight against climate change. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is one of the most important steps on that road".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We welcome the progress made by the EU towards ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, but there is much more to do. The UK's fight against climate change, initiated some 10 years ago in Rio by John Major and taken further by my noble friend Lord Gummer, laid the foundations for the international agreement to tackle climate change.
	The Statement today refers to the pivotal role played by the Deputy Prime Minister. But that was not without its difficulties. It was the same Deputy Prime Minister who, back in November 2000, lost his nerve and his cool during negotiations with the French environment Minister, causing her to refer to him as a "male, chauvinistic pig". There has been slow progress since then, but the UK statistics are poor. We are one of the dirtiest countries—98th out of 142—and we have a poor record on recycling. We recycle a paltry 11 per cent compared to Switzerland, Germany and Austria with recycling rates of around 50 per cent. Is the Minister confident that local authorities will meet the government target of 25 per cent by 2005? Will that figure include the extra huge costs that local authorities are currently facing because of the fridge mountain debacle? It is hoped that other countries will ratify and, in particular, that the United States will re-engage with the process. What risk does US exclusion from the process pose to its eventual legal status?
	The Government have set a target of providing 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010. Will the Government take urgent action to implement the recommendation in the energy review and remove the institutional barrier to,
	"the working of the planning system which at present fails to place local concerns within a wider framework of national and regional need"?
	Will the Government take into account the emissions from aircraft which heavily pollute our skies? The Statement refers to "deeper cuts". Is this one aspect that the Government are considering?
	Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to put in place a coherent transport policy has led to the queues of traffic that still pollute our air on a daily basis and add to an already critical situation?
	Does the Minister take seriously the remarks of the Chief Scientific Adviser who, on radio this morning, called for an increase in the number of nuclear power stations if some of the targets are to be achieved?
	Will the Government assure the House that the climate change levy will not damage the competitiveness of UK industry? The energy review to which I referred earlier states that,
	"it would not make any sense for the UK to incur large abatement costs, harming its international competitiveness, if other countries are not doing so".
	The whole tone of the Statement is self-congratulatory. However, the Government's ability to achieve their objectives and rational strategies is suspect, particularly in relation to what was the Department of the Environment and MAFF, now the unjoined-up DEFRA, and other government departments.
	The PIU report makes clear that, to achieve the objectives set out in the Statement, major institutional changes, including to the planning system, need to be made to deliver the strategy. When do the Government intend to put these changes in motion?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the ratification. We would also welcome an early debate in the House on both the Kyoto Protocol and the Government's objectives for Johannesburg because the two go hand in hand.
	I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench label the UK as the 98th out of the 142 "dirtiest men in the world". It was under the Conservative government that we first received the label of the "dirtiest man in Europe"—because that is what the measurements were at that time—but no government to date have proved themselves to be firmly behind environmental taxes and the kinds of actions needed to move us forward.
	We should certainly debate further the issue of nuclear power. It is easy to say that it is a cleaner technology, but its legacy in terms of expense for future generations is something for which they will not thank us. More than that, it has not proved itself economically in the present generation, although governments find that easy to ignore when searching for an answer to climate change.
	At the beginning of the Statement the Minister said that the world has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on. That somewhat plays down the issue. The position is that the world has everything to lose if it does not meet that challenge.
	The Minister went on to say that the Government would be funding renewables to the tune of £250 million over the next three years. That is only £80 million a year. He did not say whether that money was for research and development or for infrastructure development or both. The west coast of Scotland, if developed properly, has an enormous amount of renewable energy but it desperately needs investment in its infrastructure to bring that energy down to where it is needed. I would welcome the Minister's comments.
	Noble Lords will know that my noble friend Lord Ezra has often spoken of the enormous potential of combined heat and power plants. I welcome the fact that the strategy for that will be published shortly. Will the Minister define what "shortly" means, because that policy is certainly in a mess at the moment?
	As to the range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector, one of the Government's biggest failures to date has been the absence of a change to building regulations and planning policy guidance so that account is taken of simple things such as passive solar gain—big windows that face south. It is not rocket science but it does require firm policies.
	Can the Minister comment on the Government's 10-year plan for transport? He says that it will address the issue of projected emissions growth in this key sector. The plan will count for nothing if action does not follow. To date, we have not seen any action which has reduced congestion and we still wait to hear what will happen with the railways. It is a fine Statement, but I hope that action will follow.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of both Opposition Front Benches for the ratification process. It is very important that we should be united across the parties on Kyoto. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, slightly spoilt it by saying that the Statement was self-congratulatory, but we do, as a country, have something to congratulate ourselves on. As the noble Baroness said, the process started under the previous regime at Rio and we have led the way, not only in the negotiating field but in being on target to meet our Kyoto objectives to a far greater degree than many other countries. Therefore, self-congratulation is appropriate without falling into complacency. We must not be complacent on this front at all.
	Both noble Baronesses asked a number of questions. Recycling is certainly an important part of our delivery of aspects of the climate change programme and of other objectives. We believe that local government will play a major part in that delivery and that it is setting itself up so to do. It will receive help from the Government.
	The current difficult situation with fridges is outside our assumptions. The help that we have already announced in regard to fridges is over and above the general help we are giving to meet recycling targets. We expect local government itself to have in-put in meeting the recycling general targets. It is to be hoped that the situation with fridges can be surmounted, and we shall focus on meeting those targets over the medium term.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the United States. We all regret the position taken by the United States but, as the Statement indicates, there has been a significant shift. President Bush now recognises that climate change problems exist and he is prepared to fund scientific research and to make general exhortations to United States industry. That is a different position from the one he adopted on taking power, so there is some progress.
	There is also considerable progress in US corporate circles and US public opinion. The situation can change, but it is at the moment a major problem not having the United States on board. There is no point in balking that. The US needs to be persuaded to rejoin the process.
	As regards the legal status, a US presence is not absolutely essential. The requirement for the protocol to come into force is that 55 nations must sign it, among which must be countries representing 55 per cent of the developed world in terms of emissions. That can be done without the United States— although it does require the signature of some of the other powers which are "teetering" in regard to a decision—of Japan, for example, which is further along the line towards committing itself than it was a few weeks ago, and of Russia, where major decisions will be taken in the next few weeks. Those two nations need to be included if we want to reach the 55 per cent target.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised important issues relating to the energy review. The Government's response will come shortly, and will include issues relating to planning. She also raised issues on the transport side, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Clearly, transport is a very important area in which further action is required in order to meet the targets. In relation to aircraft, international agreement will be necessary. At present, it is very difficult for one nation, or even the EU, to take the lead. However, discussions are beginning on aircraft emissions. More substantial are the emissions from motor traffic. The 10-year plan—about which both noble Baronesses were slightly sceptical—is geared very much to reducing congestion on the one hand and emissions per vehicle on the other, as well as transferring some traffic away from the roads and adopting less carbon-intensive systems.
	On all those fronts—the 10-year plan for transport; improving the infrastructure; taking other measures to reduce congestion; and, in concert with the corporate sector, changing the basis of fuels and increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles that remain dependent on carbon technology—we are making an important contribution. It is particularly important since transport is the one area where emissions are still rising.
	Nuclear power will be covered in the Government's response to the energy review. It is fairly clear, both from the review and from the Government's announced position hitherto, that the UK does not need new nuclear capacity to meet the Kyoto target. The dilemma for energy policy in that sense is what will happen beyond the 2012 date when there may be a gap and the PIU may make reference to doubling the target for renewables, for example. Others would advocate an increased nuclear role. But there is no need, in order to meet the Kyoto targets, for us to presume any increase in the nuclear component. At present, there are no proposals for additional nuclear capacity. However, both for our own purposes and for world purposes, we wish to retain a capacity in nuclear technology.
	The climate change levy is one of the most important of the environmental taxes which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, regretted that we did not have. It is an important environment tax. It is also one that is geared to improving the ability of British industry to be ahead of the game in developing technology and the production and distribution methods that minimise carbon emissions. That will give British industry a competitive advantage in the medium term, both in terms of the pressures on industry to act quickly and in terms of recycling some of the climate change levy into carbon-saving technology.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to renewables. I have stressed their importance, and the importance of CHP on which a study will come shortly. I know that "shortly" can be interpreted as meaning tomorrow. It will not be quite as shortly as that but it will be within a reasonable time.
	The noble Baroness also mentioned building regulations. We made significant progress in that area a few months ago. My colleague, Nick Raynsford, announced some significant changes in future building regulations. There is some more work to be done, but that will be an important contribution. The noble Baroness also raised the question of a debate on Kyoto and Johannesburg. That is a matter not for me but for the usual processes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, commented that we have everything to lose if we do not achieve the targets. That is true. The world has a lot to lose if we do not deliver on Kyoto as the first step to delivering climate change. The ratification process at EU level undertaken by this Government and the lead that Britain and the EU have taken will help us to take that first step.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he believes that the British biofuel industry has a significant contribution to make in meeting the Kyoto objectives?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, biofuels—both in the sense of potential in liquid biofuels and in biomass for energy production—are certainly alternative fuel technologies that we need to develop as a contribution towards meeting the renewables target. It is also part of the synergy of the new department—which the noble Baroness indicated had not gone as far as it should. I dispute that. We have made great progress. It is in terms of a synergy between the agricultural dimension of the department and the environment dimension that we could develop alternative crops which could be profitable for the agricultural sector and help in meeting our renewables targets. That, if nothing else, is a justification for DEFRA.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although he suggests that it is not essential to have the United States on board, it is nevertheless highly regrettable if it is not? Does he accept, therefore, that the Government will receive all possible support in the robust stand they seem to be taking with our United States friends? Does he further agree that, in taking such a stand, the time has come to make the argument very toughly that failure to get to grips internationally with this issue will result in more economic disruption and more human suffering than is ever likely to result from terrorism?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is profoundly true. It is part of the tone of what we are trying to convey at all levels to our United States friends in an attempt to persuade them off the course of abandoning the Kyoto Protocol and to re-engage with it. I said that we could manage to deliver the terms of the protocol without the United States. But that would be in a narrow legal sense. Clearly, when we are talking about a country which contributes over a quarter of all emissions, the absence of that country from the process is an important problem in terms of delivering it.
	There are some matters which President Bush is prepared to put into place to slow down the growth of emissions. But his predecessors, in 1990—indeed, the government led by his father—committed themselves to a 7 per cent reduction. Our calculations at present are that, as was indicated in the Statement, there will be a 25 per cent growth of emissions despite President Bush's package. That will make the delivery of the Kyoto targets very difficult to achieve. We and our allies and other friends of America need to try to persuade it to change course.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Scotland has an excess in terms of its capacity to generate electricity. He may also be aware that I believe that that is excellent. I want to ask the Minister about hydro-generation, which currently represents 10 per cent of Scottish electricity generation. Do the Government plan to expand this well-proven technology, especially as it is acceptable within the landscape? The Minister will no doubt be aware that Scotland's neighbours in Norway have sufficient hydro-capacity to be self-sufficient should there be a bad, rainy summer. It is an excellent feature—bad weather can equal sufficiency in energy.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the improbable event of a summer of heavy rain in Scotland, I have no doubt that the hydro facilities that it has, and other potential projects, could make a significant contribution. Hydro-electricity is not, strictly speaking, as effective in terms of renewables and carbon minimisation as some other areas. Nevertheless, we recognise the capacity of Scotland to create energy from its natural resources. Along with many other areas, Scotland will no doubt be making a major contribution to saving the world from climate change. Its natural advantages need to be developed. In that sense the Government will certainly support hydro-technology.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the actions that the Government are taking. I note the Minister's response to the question about the nuclear industry. However, does he agree that the amount of CO2 emissions currently saved by the nuclear power that we generate is helping towards meeting those targets? In particular, looking to the longer term, does the Minister agree that we shall need to take decisions soon on whether we can maintain the current figure of 20 per cent of electricity that is generated by nuclear power in this country if we are to try to make progress on limiting CO2 emissions? Does he also agree that the previous government and the present Government have failed to deal with the major issue at the heart of public concern about the nuclear industry, which relates to the safe disposal of nuclear waste? I know that my noble friend the Minister has previously expressed concern about that. What is his department doing about the problem and when can we expect some decisions to be taken about the safe disposal of nuclear waste?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the concern in your Lordships' House about nuclear waste, which reflects the public concern. My noble friend will know that we have now engaged in a consultation process on the options for disposal of nuclear waste over the long term. Clearly, whatever level of nuclear capacity we have over the longer term—and there are decisions that will have to be made on that—the amount of nuclear waste that has already been generated, together with that which will be generated by power stations that will be operational for a number of years yet, is sufficient for us to need a strategy for its long-term disposal. We are addressing that now.
	My only point about nuclear capacity, as I said earlier, is that we do not have to take a decision on it in order to meet the Kyoto targets. However, that does not mean that we can wait until beyond 2012 before we take the serious decisions on our future mix of energy sources.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, under the Kyoto agreement, the Republic of Ireland was afforded a marked increase in relevant emissions, in contrast with the reductions required in the United Kingdom. A significant consequence of that has been a substantial differential in excise duties on road fuel between the Republic and Northern Ireland, with an ancillary consequence of massive smuggling between the two. I do not dissent in any way from the Kyoto principles, but I should like to know whether the Government have advanced any new resolution to that problem, which leads to massive disrespect for the rule of law in the Province, to the despair of honest traders, quite apart from misgivings as to where the proceeds of smuggling might be going.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that that serious problem of differential fuel taxing and the resultant smuggling or legal crossing of the border to fill up with petrol can be ascribed directly to the Kyoto Protocol. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom take separate decisions on their mix of taxes. Our argument is that other fiscal measures will be needed in the Republic of Ireland and in other EU states to ensure that they meet their Kyoto targets and contribute to their given figures within the EU bubble. Ireland may be allowed some increase, but it needs to ensure that it keeps within the requirements of the EU bubble, which may mean that some additional taxation is needed. It is for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to decide on that mix of taxation. The difference in relative taxes has caused some serious disturbance in Northern Ireland, but that is a consequence of us all maintaining separate sovereignty over taxes. I know that some of the noble Lord's friends would not wish to upset that position in the European Community.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, if I recollect correctly, the House recently passed a statutory instrument devolving the setting of targets for renewable energy to the Scottish Parliament. Do the targets that the Minister is talking about today relate only to England and Wales, or are they targets for the whole of the UK?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the targets relating to our international obligations are for the whole of the UK. The devolved administrations are all party to the UK programme for dealing with climate change. There are separate chapters of the climate change programme relating to the contributions of the devolved administrations. In some cases, the way in which they are meeting their targets is different, because of devolution.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, if no one else wants to speak from the Back Benches, I believe that I am entitled to ask a follow-up question, in view of the time available. I should like to press the Minister on the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We all hope that we shall be able to get some fuel from our crops. The Minister and I share that hope. However, it is difficult to ensure that bio-generating power stations are placed near to where the crops will be grown. He will remember that one recent application in Wiltshire was turned down. One of the problems that we shall face if we are not careful is that we may grow crops in one part of the country and then waste huge amounts of energy and money on transporting them to the other end of the country. Planning for fuel generating plants is hugely important.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am familiar with the case that the noble Baroness refers to. She raised the general issue of planning consents earlier. This is an important issue. The Curry commission on agriculture made great play of the importance of energy crops. A market for those crops is needed, which requires appropriate investment. The PIU report's comments on planning consents will have to be taken up in our review of planning and will be part of our response to the PIU energy review.

Lord Haslam: My Lords, the response to the Statement has been favourable, but I have to strike a sour note. I have lived through the history of this issue. Going back to Rio, its effects were minimal. The main reason for that is that when Mr Clinton went to the Senate, it put down a protocol that said that any environmental measures must not affect the United States economy adversely. That protocol remains in force. Mr Bush has been perfectly honest, because that has been the American position throughout the Rio and Kyoto negotiations.
	The other issue that annoyed the Americans beyond measure about Kyoto was the fact that Britain, Germany and France insisted that the base date should be 1990. The Americans wanted 1997, which was the date of the Kyoto agreement. We more or less destroyed our coal industry during this intervening period, while the merger with East Germany gave the Germans a great bonus and the French were going nuclear at the time. We all got the benefit of rapid change that has long gone. We will not have any similar opportunity in the future.
	We are now faced with a situation in which America is not in, along with China, India and all the developing world. That represents more than half the potential world consumption and these economies are growing and growing. More coal and gas is being burned in the world now. That trend will continue. Demand for electricity and power is going up all the time. We say that we shall make a reduction of 10 per cent, but we are working on a moving target, not a fixed one. Renewables would have difficulty keeping up with that growth, let alone exceeding it.
	The other problem with Kyoto is that, to get people on board, concessions were made that rendered the agreement somewhat flawed. There is trading of emissions between countries—emissions can be bought and sold. Another important development is that a country can grow forests that act as a sink for CO2. This could become a cheater's charter.
	We would like to believe that the agreement is a wonderful thing that will change the world. We may feel good about setting an example, but the industry in this country is not in such a wonderful state that we can put ourselves in an uncompetitive position. All the renewables that we are talking about, even the successful ones, are far more expensive than the traditional forms of energy with which we are familiar.
	We are at a critical stage and it would be wrong to blind ourselves to the real situation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord said is correct, and I have never said—nor has any UK Government or EU spokesman—that Kyoto resolves the problem of climate change. However, the conferences at Rio and at Kyoto were the first occasion on which the world as a whole collectively accepted responsibility for trying to slow down and reverse a process that could be devastating for the world as a whole. That was a major political achievement.
	Delivering the commitment will be a major first step—although only a first step—in dealing with these problems. As far deeper cuts in carbon will be required post-Kyoto, far more substantial changes in our production and economic methods will be required. Nevertheless, it is a first step. As with any journey, the first step is vital. In this case, the exercise of leadership also is vital. Britain and the EU as a whole, but particularly Britain, have taken that vital first step in leadership. A significant proportion of developed countries must follow that lead before we can expect countries such as India, Brazil and China to come on board.
	Significantly, the Chinese have announced for the first time some very serious action to clean up their technology. In the past five years, China's carbon emissions in relation to per capita GDP have been reduced drastically. China has made a start in decoupling carbon emissions growth from economic growth. That process must be greatly intensified. However, we cannot expect countries with a standard of living comparable to China's to adopt the ambitious Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction programme unless a lead is given by countries with much higher levels of per capita carbon emissions. That is why it is vital that 55 per cent—the key figure—of developed countries make that commitment. We can then begin to put pressure on the Chinas and the Indias of this world to come on board.
	That is one more reason why it is regrettable that the United States is not with us. I am not accusing President Bush of being dishonest in any sense; I just think that he is wrong—wrong for America and wrong for the world. I believe that American industry and American public opinion need to be persuaded to change that position so that America can take its rightful place as a leader in this process. America is currently on the wrong track, although it is beginning to see the arguments on the need to stop climate change. Those arguments will become much more substantial as time goes on.
	I do not believe that our commitment to Kyoto and to this process puts British industry—except, very momentarily, in a few sectors—at a disadvantage. In the short to medium-term, this type of technological change in production and other methods will give British industry a competitive advantage because, eventually, industry around the world will have to adopt those methods. As we are in the lead in this technology, our commitment is economically sensible as well as vital for the survival of the planet.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
	Clause 33 [Police powers for police authority employees]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 184:
	Page 31, line 34, at beginning insert "After consultation with his Police Authority,"

Lord Dixon-Smith: This is a simple little amendment which I hope will catch the Minister in the same helpful frame of mind as we found him in when we began our consideration of the Bill and he agreed that the principle of consultation was inconceivable in the context of the Secretary of State preparing a national policing plan. It seems to me that it is similarly inconceivable that a chief constable would introduce suggested changes in the form of policing in his constabulary without consulting his police authority.
	This is a very simple amendment which I hope will tempt the Minister once again to say a very simple, "Yes". If he does not accept our rather basic wording in the amendment but agrees with us in principle, he might consider the issue and return with his own proposals. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am pleased to kick off by saying that I agree with the spirit of this group of amendments—so we are starting off on the right foot. We believe that a chief officer of police should consult fully with his police authority before he extends any powers to civilian police authority employees or establishes an accredited community safety scheme within the force area. However, we believe that there is a danger that these amendments will create an additional and unnecessary bureaucratic burden by requiring consultation that, in many ways, duplicates what this legislation already requires.
	Amendment No. 184 requires a chief officer to consult his police authority before designating support staff. Amendments Nos. 185 and 188 propose a system of consultation that is based on establishing a designation scheme for the extension of powers. The proposal would be drafted by the chief officer and submitted to the relevant police authority in the same way as the annual policing plan—in many ways duplicating an already established consultation mechanism which works well.
	Currently, chief officers who decide to make use of support staff—albeit without police powers—in roles such as case managers and custody support staff are not required to consult police authorities. That is seen exclusively as a matter for the chief officer. Therefore, the lack of an explicit requirement to consult is consistent with existing practice. However, I accept that there is a difference in that those people would have a small amount of police power. Nevertheless, we believe that the best way forward, creating the least additional bureaucracy, would be to require annual consultation with the police authority on any proposals to begin or continue the extension of powers to support staff or the establishment of an accredited community safety scheme.
	In Clause 34, we have already required that plans to designate support staff under Schedule 4 or to establish a community safety accreditation scheme—and how the two proposals overlap—be set out in the annual policing plan and that drafts of that document be submitted by the chief officer to the police authority. I think that the annual policing plan is probably the right vehicle for this consultation. As we discussed in our initial consideration in Committee, it is a local plan, prepared by the police authority before the beginning of each financial year. The plan sets out the arrangements for policing the force area during the coming year.
	The process for producing the plan was established under the Police Act 1996. The mechanism set out in these amendments is very similar to the proposed one in that the chief officer drafts the plan and submits it to the police authority. Moreover, when the police authority disagrees with the draft plan, it is required to consult with the chief officer before publishing a plan that differs from the draft. We believe that this sets out clearly what the consultation process should be. It also ensures that decisions are agreed before the start of the financial year to ensure that adequate resources are available.
	In the light of those comments and our belief that there should be consultation, albeit in the form of the annual policing plan, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree that we have met the spirit of his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. The answer to his question is essentially, "Yes". Nevertheless, I still ask him to consider the need to include such provision in the Bill. While the annual policing plan is an entirely appropriate vehicle for consultation, there is nothing that says that it must be done that way or that a chief constable could not start the process without consultation. We are again dealing with this wretched business of possibilities. If the Minister will think about what I have said, I shall happily think about what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: moved Amendment No. 185A:
	Page 31, line 34, after force insert ", including the British Transport Police,"

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I have tabled this amendment as it appears that the Bill as drafted does not give the British Transport Police the power to accredit community support officers. A wide range of functions is proposed for CSOs and there is scarcely one which does not apply to the railway environment. Tasks such as helping to combat graffiti and vandalism, providing a visible authority presence at particular "hot-spot" stations in times of increased alert and general reassurance to reduce fear of crime at stations are all obvious areas for co-operation between CSOs and the British Transport Police.
	Currently, BTP are working on safety issues of exactly that kind with rail staff in two distinct ways. The first is at Railtrack's 15 major stations. These account for approximately 15 per cent of all crime reported to BTP. Security guards are employed on those station concourses. However, until recently, those guards did nothing more than call for BTP help whenever they were faced with a problem. Therefore, they did not provide a great deal of assistance in tackling the problems they were hired to resolve. Happily, however, Railtrack realised this and talked to BTP about providing training for those security guards. As a result Railtrack now has people who are better equipped to deal appropriately with difficult situations. The next stage will be the development of a briefing process to encourage security staff to be deployed in ways that are most likely to reduce crime.
	There is no doubt that the public would benefit from there being better trained, more accountable security guards at stations. Yet, as things stand in the Bill, staff at major stations in London would have to be accredited by the Metropolitan Police under the control and direction of the commissioner, wear uniforms identical to other Met CSOs, but operate in areas which are under BTP jurisdiction, whereas the CSOs themselves would not be under that jurisdiction. I suggest to my noble friend that that would not work. It would be impossible if BTP officers were unable to direct security guards on stations. If chief constables are not to be allowed to accredit staff in another chief constable's area, as the Bill states, they should be unable to do so in the area of the BTP chief constable.
	The same applies to an even greater extent with on-board train staff. BTP was recently asked by a train operating company, South West Trains, to work with its people on its services and to train them. The company plans to invest up to £1.8 million on the initiative. If BTP were not allowed to accredit the staff they have trained, train operating companies would have to approach a Home Office force for accreditation of their staff. But as a chief police officer can accredit only in his own police area, the particular train operator I have mentioned would need to seek accreditation from the Met and from Surrey, Hampshire, Sussex, Devon and Cornwall forces. That situation is clearly unworkable. I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that there is a strong case for amending the Bill in the modest way that I have suggested to ensure that BTP are given the authority to accredit CSOs. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. BTP are a special case. I believe all of us consider that railway premises are underpoliced. Graffiti is in evidence everywhere. There are all kinds of opportunities to cause damage on the railways, which go largely unchecked. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that anything that is done for Specials in this regard—which I hope will be done—should apply also to the British Transport Police as they need to employ Specials. The amendment would allow BTP to take responsibility for certain railway staff, from whom I hope they will be able to recruit personnel, as well as employing Specials.

Lord Hylton: There are two forms of highly anti-social behaviour which in my experience frequently cause delay to trains. The first is the dropping of sometimes heavy objects off bridges either on to the rail track or on to passing trains. The second is trespassing on the line. Can the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, or the Minister tell the Committee that those forms of activity, which are much to be deplored, are already covered by the existing powers of British Transport Police? If they are, can they be dealt with more effectively? If they are not, what should be done?

Lord Renton: I am not opposed to the amendment; I rather tend to favour it. However, an earlier clause refers to various other police bodies. It seems to me that to single out the transport police is unfortunate. Clause 3 refers to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. New Section (3A) on page 3 refers to the Northern Ireland Police Service and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. One wonders why they should not be treated in the same way as the transport police.

Lord Elton: While we are on the point, and to give the Minister time to think, will he tell us where the Royal Parks Police figure in all this?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the final point first. That police force does not figure here. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the issue he raised will de dealt with in later amendments.
	I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and with his argument that the changes set out in Clause 33 would also be appropriate for the British Transport Police. I know that that view is shared by the force, which sees great potential in community support officers patrolling railway stations, for example, in support of the police. However, having made those nice comments, the Government do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for such a change. The British Transport Police do not have a police authority and so, at the moment, could not be brought within the scope of Clause 33. Also, as many of the powers in Schedule 4 are not available to BTP constables it would not therefore be appropriate to confer them on BTP civilian staff.
	However, I can tell the noble Lord that the Government want to include the British Transport Police, where appropriate, within the scope of the police reform package as a whole. I shall undertake to take up this issue with colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who are actively considering bringing forward their own legislation dealing with the British Transport Police more generally. Waiting for another Bill also has the advantage of seeing how this new policy operates across the 43 Home Office forces before extending it more widely.
	We need to spend more time thinking through some of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised concerning the territoriality of the police service. Discussions with colleagues in the DTLR will be important in that regard. The noble Lord made some good, helpful points. Some issues will need to be resolved. We consider that they can be usefully resolved in further discussion with our colleagues. Some of the issues could be teased out. It would be more appropriate to deal with this important matter in separate legislation dealing more exclusively with the British Transport Police.
	I should try to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if I can. We confirm that the offences of trespassing on railway property and throwing stones, rocks, boulders or whatever to impede the progress of trains are enforceable by the BTP—they involve, after all, criminal offences—and through issuing fixed penalty notices by the police under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Those powers are proposed to be conferred on community support officers under Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Bill.
	I have given as comprehensive a response as I can. I hope that I have given sufficient encouragement to my noble friend Lord Faulkner to enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord does so, I want to pursue the issue of the Royal Parks Police a yard or two further—or a metre or two further, as I believe we should now say. Although I am not one of the foremost supporters of the idea of auxiliary policemen, some of the powers that will be given to them in Schedule 4 appear to be extremely appropriate to people patrolling parks. I refer to the powers under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act, the powers of an authorised officer of a litter authority, and the powers relating to anti-social behaviour and the consumption of alcohol in a public place. Those matters are somewhat akin to what a park-keeper used to do and should not be done by fully trained policemen. I might agree that the Royal Parks Police would be a good addition in this context but they do not appear to figure in the provisions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I understand it, the problem with the Royal Parks Police is similar to that of the BTP. They do not have their own police authority.

Lord Elton: I hesitate to correct the noble Lord—I am almost certainly wrong because I have a bad memory—but I rather thought that the Home Secretary had the relevant responsibility. If so, I should have thought that it was still with him or that it has gone where some of his other powers have gone.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, may be wrong but my understanding is that the Home Secretary was only ever the police authority for the Met, although he no longer does that. I believe that that is right but perhaps we need to clarify the situation. The noble Lord makes a good point generally. The matter could be picked up later—perhaps when we consider the BTP. He is right to say that it is appropriate for support staff to deal with such matters. That would be entirely right for such a service.

Lord Monson: Did I understand the Minister to say that those who are caught throwing stones at trains—on at least one occasion I have seen them smash windows and injure passengers on the train—can be arrested only by the British Transport Police?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes—by Home Office police; by the local territorial force, whether Sussex, Surrey or the Met.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On Second Reading, I said that Kensington and Chelsea employs the Royal Parks Police in its parks. I was told that most of those police are employees of the local borough. I do not know whether that situation will change.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That, too, is a different issue, which we shall air when we come to later amendments. It relates more to the issue of accreditation.

Lord Dholakia: In relation to the amendment, is it possible for a police authority employee to be seconded to the British Transport Police in emergencies?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to reflect on that. It is probably the case that the powers are interchangeable but I want to be more certain before giving a definite response. Perhaps we can get back to the noble Lord on that matter.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I want to shed a little light on the exchange between my noble friend Lord Elton and the Minister. There was a review of the Royal Parks Police, the outcome of which was that they should be transferred into the Met on the same terms. Prior to that, they came under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the Royal Parks Agency, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had the relevant responsibility. I do not know whether the Home Office has now accepted that recommendation and implemented the transfer into the Met.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a broader issue than that raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. I do not seek to be defensive in any way. Clearly, things are as they are—the status quo prevails.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am most grateful to the Minister for the friendly tone of his response and to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for supporting the original purpose of my amendment. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said. I am a little disappointed that he thinks that this is not the correct Bill in which to make the change.

Lord Elton: I believe that the convention is that if one wants to come back to a matter on Report, one says so at this point. I say so now. I want to return to the issue of the Royal Parks Police. Whatever the current position is, such powers should be available to them.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My amendment does not deal with the Royal Parks Police. Presumably, if the noble Lord wishes to table an amendment on the Royal Parks Police, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 186:
	Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Dixon-Smith: I suspect that we now move into slightly more contentious territory. The Bill seeks to increase the level of policing through the use of civilians. It does so in two ways. The amendment is directed towards the first of those ways, which involves the use of police authority employees.
	There are a number of problems with that approach. I make it clear from the start that in many ways we regard having police on the beat as the most important aspect of policing. That is where the police meet the public with—I hope that this phrase will not be misinterpreted—a vengeance. That is where the police's reputation is made. A sad comment on the way in which policing has developed is that we see police on the streets much less than used to be the case. That is one reason for the increase in street crime in all its awful forms. As a matter of principle, we should prefer the police to be on the streets, not supplementary civilians who may have variable powers. I shall come to that later.
	The clause states that police powers should be given in four forms to police-employed civilians. That has a degree of preference to accreditation schemes in that those people are at least employees of the chief constable and there is at least a clear line of responsibility back to the police. In so far as the intention is to put policemen on the streets by using community support officers, we believe that that is wrong. We think that if the police are to go out on the streets, they should at least be special constables. We do not see why those people should not be established in that way.
	We completely accept paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2), which, of course, have nothing to do with the amendment. We believe that what they propose is wholly laudable. If better use is made of police civilians in carrying out work which presently involves constables within police premises, then we consider that to be completely appropriate. However, when it comes to putting people on the street, we are convinced that, for the sake of clarity, such people should have the status of special constable.
	If that is the case, two things are ensured. The first is a proper and full level of training, which the accreditation scheme certainly will not produce, although we shall come to that matter later. It might conceivably happen with a community support officer.
	Secondly, it ensures that such people are on the street with full police powers. Part 1 of Schedule 4 produces a list of possible powers. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that a community support officer who has a limited basket of powers, because that is the way that the chief constable has designated him, may work with another community support officer who has a different basket of powers because he may have come from a slightly different area or he may be held to have a different level of competence. The opportunity for public confusion as to what these people are and how they are functioning is huge.
	Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is simple. In order not to repeat myself too many times this afternoon, I shall avoid going into the matter further but I shall mention some of the basket of functions. The whole fixed penalty area is included, together with disorder, cycling on a footway, dog fouling, litter, powers to detain and, indeed, powers to use reasonable force to detain, requiring a name and address to be provided, and so on. All those powers are included, but a community support officer does not need to have them all; he need have only some of them.
	Therefore, the chief constable has a great deal of discretion. I do not mind him having that discretion but, in this case, which concerns the interface between the police and the public, the situation requires absolute clarity. The public will not understand if there are any differences.
	The question has been raised of a precedent having been set in relation to traffic wardens. So far as I am aware, everyone knows what a traffic warden's functions are, wherever one meets him almost anywhere in the country. Traffic wardens carry out a one-function operation and work extremely well at it, although I dare say that they may have caused many of us a great deal of aggravation over the years. That position is clearly understood. But the position in the Bill is not clear.
	Therefore, we have decided that the solution is to remove the community support officer from this part of the Bill. That does not prevent the chief constable using his civilians in aid of his constables in carrying out the work that they do at present, but it does prevent him sending them out on to the street. In our view, that is not appropriate and we believe that it would lead to confusion.
	We have tabled later amendments which seek to turn these officers into community support special constables. We believe that that would be an acceptable way in which to proceed. There is, of course, a separate issue behind this matter which presumes that any police force has many spare civilians and much spare capacity waiting to carry out such work. But that is a separate issue. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I rise to address the issue of community support officers that is raised in the amendment. I was present at a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Officers which was attended by a large number of police authority representatives. Views were sought around the room and, except for London—my noble friend Lord Tope may express his opinions about London—only one authority in South Wales expressed the idea that community support officers should enjoy police powers.
	A presentation was given by Knowsley Council, which has several such officers. That council expressed adamantly the opinion that they should not have police powers. The council employed some people who, I imagine, the police would not recruit, but those people carried out a great deal of work with regard to graffiti, vandalism, quarrels between neighbours, abandoned cars and all kinds of things which give rise to nuisance value in the community.
	In Abingdon in Thames Valley, we have two retired police officers who act as community wardens. They have been very successful both in reducing crime and, with the help of volunteers who work with the youth in the town, in turning people away from anti-social behaviour and congregating outside shops. They mentor the youths and, in many cases, give them the time and the parenting which they do not otherwise receive. They steer them in the right direction. Generally speaking, we are not in favour of such people exercising police powers.
	We may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on subsequent amendments. We may not agree that all such people could be special constables—they may pass neither the fitness nor the age tests. But there is no doubt that many civilian people could assist in maintaining law and order in many ways. We would certainly be very much against the Home Secretary directing that those people should be employed; it should be a matter for local discretion. I certainly am not saying that, because they are needed in London, they may be needed throughout the rest of the country. But, in general, I support the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

Lord Condon: I rise to express concern about the amendment. On Second Reading, I encouraged your Lordships not to dismiss the proposal for community support officers out of hand. I readily acknowledge that the use of community support officers will not be the first or best choice of chief officers. Their first, and best, choice will be to have an increase in regular police officers.
	Therefore, what has driven a small number of them to support this proposal outside this House? The Minister has spoken about the record number of police officers. That may well mean that we have, or are about to have, one more than we had several years ago. In fact, if one takes out the reduction in the number of special constables, which has dropped from 20,000 to 13,000 over the past two years, the policing endeavour in the round has reduced dramatically, despite the best efforts of many people.
	If one then turns to the specifics of London, one finds that it becomes an even more challenging environment. My former police service, which peaked at nearly 29,000 police officers in the early 1990s, has reduced in number to about 26,500. It has seen a dramatic reduction in civilian staff and special constables. I shall illustrate that. today I drove from Sutton through Croydon, Streatham, Lambeth and Vauxhall and I did not see a single police officer until I approached Westminster. I believe that London has become a challenging environment. That is why London and perhaps one or two other police services would like at least to be able to consider the provisions within the Bill.
	Specifically in the London context, I know that my former colleagues would like to consider using community support officers in three ways. First, they would use them to work alongside regular police officers on estates and describe them as community support. They would be briefed with regular officers; would accompany them and would be used with them in conjunction with community work. Secondly, they would also be used to support the traffic endeavour. I refer to the congestion in London and to the reduction of average speeds. There are specific proposals to use them in that way. Thirdly, and probably most importantly at present, they would be used to enhance the security endeavour. I know that my former colleagues are anxious to use several hundred community support officers in protection duties to release regular officers and to provide an additional security resource post September 11th.
	There is a set of challenging circumstances, particularly in London, which would encourage the use of community support officers. However, I am the first to admit that they would not be my first choice. My first choice would be an enhancement of resources to enable the provision of more regular officers. I believe that the amendment would give the police service additional short to medium-term choices around extending the policing family.
	If support officers, however designated, are also Specials, they will require commensurate training to ensure that they are properly trained and accountable to enable them to use the powers of Specials. In one way that would defeat part of the rationale for the provision; that is, to enable the police family to include support staff who are not trained to the level of either Specials or regulars. I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. I believe I know where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. By all means the provision should be hedged in with prescriptions and controls so that anxieties are expressed in other ways. However, I would encourage an enabling provision at the end of the Bill to enable the police family to be extended, even if we have not got it right so far.

Lord Elton: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, comes from a different direction from those who speak for police authorities further north and west, whose concerns must be kept in mind. I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord has a different picture in his mind from the one that I have in mine of the people we are talking about, the community support officers. It may be that he knows something which I do not about what the chief officers of police and the commissioner will regard as the meaning of the words "adequate training" in subsection 3(c). There has been a certain amount of bar talk of a few weeks training for such people.
	Those people will be the representatives of the police force, so far as the public are concerned. They will be on the street and if they lose their name, then the Met, or another police force, will lose its name with them. If my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is to be persuaded of the point—I do not think that will be easy—the one thing which might persuade him would be some sort of undertaking by the Government as to what the level of training will be rather than leaving that to that general and subjective phrase.
	I found another part of the noble Lord's intervention a little puzzling. He said that he drove what was, I think, something like 12 miles through London—not far from my front door on the way—and, like me, saw not a single policeman. However, the business of community support officers is to accompany the policemen that he did not see, so presumably he would not see them either. There must be an answer to that. Presumably that means that other people will be deployed in police stations and panda cars to get the policemen out on to the street.
	My next point is an enthusiastic endorsement of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the efficacy of getting to young people by means of mentoring before they get into trouble. That is a wider subject than the amendment. However, we should all have a motto in our minds, which is, "Even better than more policemen is fewer criminals". The way to achieve that is to get to children before they become criminals. However, I go too wide.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I bring a different perspective to the issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Condon, I speak as a former police officer. I should like to bring us back to the real world. We are talking about community support officers who would support the police in the difficult job of policing. The reality is that the police service cannot attract sufficient recruits. In an ideal world we would have more police officers. The reality also is that we already have different forms of community support officers. I hear Members of the Committee say that the provision has no support north of Watford. That is simply not true. In my county, Sedgefield, for some time we have had a community support patrol employed by Sedgefield Council. It is not under the control of the police but works closely and well with the police and is supported by them. It acts as the eyes and the ears of the police dealing with minor vandalism. That is the very thing for which members of the public ask.
	Members of the public are crying out for a uniformed presence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, rightly said, the police are not providing it. I have experienced the same problem. We do not see officers walking about on the streets. That is not the fault of the police. It is a fact of life that for various reasons police officers are tied up on specialist duties. We used to have park-keepers and bus conductors who provided a uniformed presence in the community. That gave people a sense of security. We do not have that now. We now have security guards in shopping centres and community patrols such as those in Sedgefield, which I have mentioned. There are similar schemes throughout the country. The reality is that we now have private bodies patrolling in uniform—without police powers; I accept—giving the community that for which they ask; that is, a sense of reassurance which, for whatever reason, the police cannot supply.
	It may well be that, like New York, we shall be able to recruit sufficient police officers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that New York has turned things round completely, not least because it has increased the number of uniformed police officers over the years. It has also applied a zero-tolerance approach to policing, which I favour. The police should get back to policing and forget about being social workers. Policing is about enforcing the law. So long as police officers do that, I believe they will make a difference. Unfortunately, some chief officers do not believe in that and think that the police have a different role. However, that is by the way. The reality is that we have many different types of uniformed bodies patrolling the streets.
	This provision means that for the first time uniformed patrols will be under the control of the police. In my judgment, the advantage of that is clear: the police service can set the standards; provide the training and look at the complaints procedure against the security patrols; that is, the community support officers. In other words, there is a mechanism in the Bill which leads to the independent police complaints commission. There will be accountability for the first time.
	I declare an interest as president of the Joint Security Industry Council. I am involved with security companies and organisations. It is important to mention that the security industry can benefit from the Bill's provisions. Clearly there is some business here for the security industry—but at least under the Bill, it will come under the control of those who participate in such schemes, whether accredited or working directly for the chief constable, and be subject to all the standards those authorities set. That is a real advantage. To remove the clause would be a great mistake.

Lord Fowler: I bow to the noble Lord's expertise but do not agree that the public want community support officers. We should approach the matter by considering what the public do want. In that respect, I support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and believe that this is one of the most fundamental proposals in the Bill. It comes not from the Home Secretary but from his predecessor. Much of the originating work was done by Ian Blair, then Chief Constable of Surrey, now Deputy Commissioner of Police for the metropolis.
	No one would claim that the proposal has the overwhelming support of the police service the length and breadth of the country. When Mr. Blair set out his vision at an Association of Chief Police Officers conference in 1998, he saw
	"two local authority patrols in bright red uniforms marked Surrey Police Compliant move around the high street drawn from the welfare-to-work programme, funded by central government in concert with the local authority. They have radios connected to the police officer with direct responsibility for this area. That police officer is liasing with education and social services representatives, whose cars are also marked police compliant".
	That was the beginning of public debate on a proposal that the police service has not overwhelmingly accepted. It is at odds with the tradition of police work in this country. The reason for establishing an organised professional police service was that private patrols broke down. That is how the Metropolitan Police were formed. I am in no way prejudiced against private security. Between 1990 and 1993 I was a director of Group 4, which is one of the leading security companies in this country, and remain an admirer of its standards. I believe in the role of private security and support licensing.
	I believe also that there is a natural limit to the role of professional private security and perhaps even more to that of local authority staff, however they are recruited and dressed. Private security has a valuable role in guarding premises and protecting cash. Local authorities have an established role in respect of parks and so on.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: The noble Lord suggested that the debate started with Ian Blair but that simply is not true. Patrols in Sedgefield happened well before Ian Blair. The reality is that there are uniformed patrols on the streets and enforcing the law, dealing with minor vandalism. The clause will bring those services within the ambit of the police service for the first time. At present, there is no legislation to stop anybody setting up a private patrol that can be hired by a wealthy estate or a local authority. The clause will bring such services within the police family and make them subject to the standards that the police service represents. The noble Lord has not addressed that point.

Lord Fowler: I have only just started. If the noble Lord will be patient, I will address that particular point. I cannot comment on any debates that the police service has in private but what I said about the public debate is absolutely correct. The Home Secretary's response was that Ian Blair's plans and the ones we have today were a real possibility.
	The proposal goes way beyond anything we have had before. As far as I know, we do not have private patrols on the streets with the power to arrest and detain people for 30 minutes before the police turn up. Does the noble Lord want to correct me and claim that hundreds of people are undertaking such patrols?

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I am reluctant to intervene again and to interrupt the noble Lord's flow but this is about completely removing community support officers. The question of powers will be debated later.

Lord Fowler: With respect, we are debating the concept of community support officers. That is the whole point of the amendment. It is difficult to debate the concept without examining the powers. Unless the noble Lord and the public understand that we are discussing something new, the debate will get off to a bad and confused start.
	We should remember recent history—and here I praise the police service. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was engaged in writing a book about the police in Europe. In 1968, there were riots and demonstrators fought against police in Amsterdam and, notably, Paris. In London, things went very differently. The point was made to me time and time again in Europe that the mistake made by the European police was adopting the view that "My uniform is my authority". The British police had won trust. I fear that we risk saying, "Your uniform is your authority". I am not sure that the public would understand or accept that concept.
	Under the Bill, community support officers would have powers never seen before. There will be disputes about abuse of power. This is ABC stuff as far as the police service is concerned. It realises that policing must be sensitive. The importance of trained police on the beat goes beyond reassurance. The generally good relationship between the police and public in Britain depends on day-by-day meetings between them.
	The Government and the country have a strategic choice. The Government are saying, "Don't worry. These things are taking place but there is a record number of police". The Minister used that phrase himself. I am a qualified admirer of the Minister—qualified only because I do not agree with many of his political views. However, I have known and worked alongside the Minister in Birmingham a long time. When he was a member of the Opposition, he would have choked with indignation if a Conservative government had used that phrase to describe police recruitment. We all know that no priority was given to police recruitment in the first four years of the Labour Government.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Fowler: No. If the noble Lord does not mind, I must make progress.
	A rather important point was, again, made by the noble Lord. I do not believe that he is right when he says that new police cannot be recruited. I simply do not think that that is the case. Indeed, there is a lesson to be learnt from New York and its zero tolerance policy. We have all been over there to see it; at least anyone who has had anything to do with home affairs over the past five or six years has done so. Its introduction has been remarkably effective. It has targeted resources upon so-called "hot spots" in crime, and has cleared up crime in a remarkable way. But what was the first course of action that they took before the policy was introduced? They recruited something like 7,000 to 8,000 new policemen. They did not recruit community support officers, they recruited policemen. That was also true throughout the cities of the United States.
	The noble Lord, Lord Condon, put it gently, but I should put it much more bluntly. The fact is that we are under-policed in this country. We are under-policed in London; we are under-policed in our big cities; and we are under-policed in many other towns throughout the country. In my view, that is the problem and the issue that we should be addressing. If we have resources, it seems to me that they should be directed to that area. The Government say that where such additional community officers have been introduced they have had an effect. Of course they have had an effect. But the question to consider is this: if police had been introduced in those areas, would there have been an even greater impact on the situation?
	Frankly, I fear that the proposal is Treasury driven. It is the cheapest way that the Government can find to reassure the public. I believe that to be the long and short of it. It will be a grave mistake for this country to accept such a proposal. Fundamentally, this is the wrong course for the Government to take. Of course we want a bigger anti-crime presence on our streets, but I suggest that the public—they are the acid test—would infinitely prefer trained police officers to these proposed substitutes. We should recognise that, by any standards, we have a fine police service in this country with a fine reputation. Indeed, I pay tribute to them. That is where the Government should place their priority, not on the kind of substitutes that are now proposed.

Lord Tope: On the first Committee day I declared that I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and of the Association of Police Authorities. Therefore, I am very well aware that very different views are held by those who come from the MPA from those who come from other police authorities. I do not find that in the least surprising, or, indeed, in the least remarkable. It arises because we have very different circumstances and experiences. The metropolis—London—is probably unlike any other city; it is certainly unlike most other cities for well-known reasons.
	If the Bill were proposing that every police authority or police service in the country must have community support officers, I should be loudest in my opposition to that proposal. That would be completely wrong. It would be inappropriate for the circumstances of most areas. However, as I understand it—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—the proposal is that they "may" do so. I shall not enter into an argument about who first thought of the idea, but it is well known that the proposal has been driven by the Metropolitan Police service and, now, by the Metropolitan Police Authority; and, in particular, by our Deputy Commissioner. I have had the benefit of Deputy Commissioner Blair's briefings on many occasions, and I am almost word perfect now. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, explained the proposals as regards the Metropolitan Police with greater authority, and much better, than I can. So I shall not repeat those points.
	However, if I thought for one moment that what was being proposed was simply a cheap alternative to policing, I, too, would oppose it. In the Metropolitan Police Service, of which I can speak with knowledge—I cannot for other areas—we are now recruiting at maximum. The Metropolitan Police Training College in Hendon has been full on every intake for most of the past year, and it looks as though that will continue for next year because the budget provision is available. So at last, long overdue, the Met is recruiting as fast and as fully as it can. It is in that context that I view the current proposals for community support officers. It is not a question of them being recruited instead of uniformed police officers. Like all noble Lords and members of the public, I certainly want to see as many uniformed police officers on our streets, and elsewhere, as possible. CSOs will not be introduced instead of uniformed police officers; they will be there as a supplement to the latter. That is an important difference. It is the condition upon which I support them.
	As I said, we are recruiting at maximum. Physically, we cannot train any more officers at present. Retention is a different issue and one upon which I shall not dwell today, but recruitment is at maximum so as to get an increased uniformed presence onto our streets and into our estates. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, explained that there are three different proposals, if you like, in the Met for the use of CSOs.
	There are those to be used in connection with security needs—the standing-on-the-street-corner position, which has been carried out by police constables since 11th September and police constables are extremely bored with having to do it.
	There is also the transport proposal. Within the Greater London Authority there is now an agreement between the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London for a transport policing initiative, which, when fully developed during the course of the coming year, will cover 26 of the bus routes most subject to criminal activity. Those duties will be conducted by uniformed police officers, supplemented by what I suppose will be called "community support officers". I do not mind what name is used. That proposal will go ahead; the agreement is there.
	However, the key question is the issue that we should be debating; namely, what powers will these officers have? But that is not the subject of the amendment now before the Committee. The amendment proposes that we should delete CSOs from the Bill. That is why I am uncomfortable with it.
	There is an important debate still to be addressed about the nature of the powers that such officers will have. That is the key question; it is not about whether they should exist. Then, in due course, the greatest number—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I shall be brief. How can we conceivably debate this amendment without looking at Schedule 4 and considering the width of the powers equated in effect to those of a police officer? The debate is about whether there should be a supplement. I am totally in favour of supplement. Indeed, the noble Lord, who is a very experienced police officer, explained the need for it. That is fine. But that is not the essence of this debate. We cannot deal with this amendment without considering Schedule 4. That is the issue as I would put it.

Lord Tope: During the course of a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, it crossed my mind that we were going through a Second Reading debate rather than a Committee stage discussion. The two amendments that we are considering specifically call for the deletion of community support officers from the Bill. There are many noble Lords who have far more experience than I have of the procedure of this Chamber. However, I thought that we were supposed to be discussing two amendments, both of which seek to delete the reference to "community support officers" from the Bill. I was explaining why I am unhappy with that suggestion.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Perhaps I may simply make the point that it is possible to have CSOs without any powers, other than those of civilians. That is what happens in Sedgfield. Therefore, we do not need to discuss the powers at this stage. I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

Lord Tope: This discussion is beginning to get a little like debates in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lord. That was exactly the point that I was trying to make and was in the process of developing. Let us call these officers "community support officers", though they were originally called auxiliaries. They will be working on London buses; indeed, that will happen, whatever powers they may have. That is my point.
	Many noble Lords have referred to the work in the community. Like other authorities elsewhere that have been mentioned, I know that many London boroughs employ neighbourhood wardens, or whatever. Similarly, those people have no policing powers as such, but they carry out an extremely important and useful job on estates and on the streets. It is a visible, and usually uniformed, presence that provides reassurance. Those employed by my local authority work very closely with the local police. They provide intelligence to the local police, and, indeed, receive briefing from them. It is known in the community that they do so, but one of the reasons for their strength is the fact that they are not seen to be part of the police. They perform a useful function.
	I take issue with the noble Lord. It is possible—whether or not it is desirable—to have community support officers of whatever name who have no powers at all. When we move further on in the Bill we shall debate what powers they should have. Then there will be some important differences. But I am unhappy with these amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I can try to bring the debate back to the point. It has strayed very much into the area of the community safety accreditation scheme. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about civilians already in full-time employment doing a full-time job for the police. The suggestion is that they might be "put out on the streets"—and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense—with very limited police powers in aid of the police.
	The difference between us is not whether or not they should go out onto the streets. We do not dispute that. We think that in this instance their three other suggested functions will relieve the constables who should be doing the work. Therefore, there is that aspect to the matter. We also feel that people on the streets acting as bobbies should have full police powers. Therefore, they should be special constables. We shall go over the ground again, but I want to try to draw the debate back to the slightly narrower focus.

Lord Waddington: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was entirely right to remind us that there is nothing in the Bill which requires chief officers of police to recruit community support officers. But we have gone over this ground many times before. I do not think that the noble Lord would seriously deny that pressure could be brought to bear on chief officers of police to recruit them purely for budgetary reasons.
	I thought that when we debated the issue the other day the Minister was inclined to come half way to meet us and to agree that perhaps something should be written into the Bill in order to prevent that kind of pressure being brought on chief officers of police. But there is nothing in the Bill at the present time to prevent that pressure being brought. Therefore, we must proceed on the assumption that the Bill should not go forward with this power unless we are absolutely satisfied that it would be right for a chief officer of police to exercise that power.

Lord Rooker: I do not want to pre-empt anyone's debate, but, to be honest, I think that that is a bit unfair. I gave a firm commitment about the use of the powers under Part 1 in respect of Part 4. I am hardly in a position to do anything about that today. We are still in Committee. I gave a firm commitment that we would go away and come back on Report. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that to start using that argument is wholly counter-productive. It is a circular argument that gets us nowhere because I have nothing else to say in response to it, other than what I have already said.

Lord Waddington: I thought that I was helping the noble Lord, not harming his case. I am perfectly prepared therefore to withdraw what I said about the Minister, which I thought was very kind to him. But it still is the fact that at the present time there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent pressure being brought on chief officers of police to recruit community support officers. That is the way we should approach this provision so that we are satisfied, before we let this power go forward, that it is a proper power and one which should in appropriate circumstances be used by chief officers of police.
	No one denies that there are plenty of areas in which the burden on the police can be reduced as a result of the use of civilians. During my time in the Home Office, great progress was made in that direction. I am by no means sure that greater progress can still not be made. But we need to look at the duties which would be performed by these community support officers. Those who advocate the recruitment of community support officers are advocating that they should carry out some of the most difficult and dangerous of all police tasks.
	We are not talking about these people just being ornaments on the streets. We are suggesting that they should be recruited to control city centres and housing estates and deal with louts and troublemakers. Their suggested duties are ones which police officers—it has been suggested—are sometimes reluctant to perform. Indeed, I seem to remember that one of the proposals put forward by the Home Secretary was that special financial bonuses might be available to police officers in order to encourage them to carry out these very duties.
	One has only to look at the diary of a police officer in order to see how little patrolling is done. Why? Is it purely a question of chief officers of police concluding that patrolling is a useless exercise? Or is it a question of there being so many other difficult duties to perform and so many pressures on the police that they cannot spare the police to do it, although they are essentially duties which should be carried out by fully trained police officers?
	I am extremely worried about the possibility of these half-trained people being put into difficult situations at a time in our history when there is a great deal of lawlessness, violence and hooliganism on our streets. At Second Reading I read a letter which had been written to The Times by a former senior officer in the Metropolitan Police. He queried how the system would work? He asked what on earth would happen if a community support officer was checking someone—a lout for dropping litter—and moments later that same lout was to draw a knife on someone standing next door to him? Is he supposed to beat a hasty retreat? In what dignified way would he get out of that kind of situation, because of course he will not be given the powers to deal with it. What would happen if he was dealing with someone who had parked a car improperly and at that moment someone came up and tried to hijack the car? No one has really answered these questions.
	The lack of full police powers could lead to ridiculous situations. Yet no one so far has suggested that these half-trained people should have full police powers. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Tope, saying that that is in another amendment. We must decide the principle of the thing now. There are difficulties in both directions. If they are given insufficient powers they cannot deal with difficult situations. If they are given too great powers then the public will question why one should give such great powers to someone who is not fully trained as a police officer.
	Where will these people come from? No one has answered that question yet. Sometimes people say, "Well, there are not enough people queuing up to be police officers. Therefore somehow or other we must tap other sources for recruits". I wonder where these other sources are. I should be extremely anxious if the kind of people attracted to become community support officers were people whom we would not consider for one moment as potential police officers. They might be very good traffic wardens, but really they are not potential police officers.
	Sometimes we have heard the opposite. We have heard that there are plenty of people queuing up to be police officers. If that is so, the answer is the one put forward by my noble friend. We should be recruiting sufficient police officers in order to carry out all these other duties which the Government say will have to be performed by community support officers.
	Surely, we should be looking at other ways to get people who can carry out these difficult jobs. The most obvious people are the Specials. They have the right powers and the right commitment, they are well established in the community, well known and accepted by people. We should now be bending all our efforts to devising new incentives to get more people to join the specials and encouraging every police force to expand its specials.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sure that everyone—I speak in particular for the women in the community—wants more police. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, our absolute first choice is to have a much stronger and better police service. I speak of the Metropolitan area, which I know better than other areas. But I should be reluctant to throw out community support officers, because although I would put police first and specials second, I would rather have community support officers than no one. That is the situation at the moment: no one on the streets. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, made an interesting point when he said that private bodies are giving the community what it is asking for. Anyone can put on any sort of uniform and go around. That is true.
	I should like to correct an error I made at Second Reading when I said that we did not want a Miami-type situation and that the police had told me that 90 per cent of properties were not open to the police in Miami. Afterwards, the police told me that it was 19 per cent. I said that their officers had better be a little clearer next time because Hansard had correctly recorded me as saying 90 per cent. That is what I thought the officer had said, but 19 per cent of premises in Miami are unavailable to the ordinary police force there because they are totally controlled by private forces. I do not want to see such a great structure of private forces developed here. If the only alternative is community support officers, I would rather see them than lots of private security firms growing willy-nilly.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made some valid points, but my concern as an ordinary member of the public is, first, to see more police and, secondly, more specials, especially if we can give them more of an official role. I understand that at present many specials are unpaid. If we are to turn them into professionals we must pay them. As a third choice, I would go for community support officers.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I agree with my noble friend. In the last resort, the public would rather have entirely civilian and private community support officers than no one at all. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, had to say about Sedgefield. Of course, he speaks with tremendous authority as a professional police officer. I am sure that it is desirable to have some form of support rather than none. I assume that those people have no powers of arrest, but it would be interesting to know how they deal with minor vandalism. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain that later.
	My noble friend Lord Fowler said that he was a qualified admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am rapidly becoming an unqualified admirer of his—qualified only because it is based on my experience of how he has dealt with this difficult Committee debate. I hope that he will continue to deal with it in the same way—I expect he will.
	Perhaps I may provide an analysis of the problem and ask the Minister's views on three or four questions. First, does he think that, rightly or wrongly, there is a lack of public confidence in the level of policing that they experience? If so, does he think that that derives from the public's belief that there is an insufficient rate of crime prevention and detection? I think the answer to both questions is yes, but it would be helpful to know if he agrees. If so, does he agree that it is elementary that that lack of confidence ought to be diminished? If his answer to that is yes, is there a more obvious way to diminish it than to have more police officers, if that were practical? Lastly, does he therefore think that there are too few police officers?
	The public want to see people on the streets with the powers of police officers. If confidence is to be restored, those who are put on the streets to do something to remedy the lack of confidence must have police powers.
	At Second Reading, I tried to draw attention to the extraordinary rigmarole that must be gone through by a civilian if his authority to ask for a name, address and so forth and to require someone to stick around for half an hour until a policeman turns up were to be questioned, as inevitably it will. I drew attention to the curious provision that he must say,
	"the accreditation . . . may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence . . . unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation".
	He must go through the whole business of his own individual accreditation, which may be different from that of someone else. My noble friend Lord Waddington touched on this point. If the public see someone putting two fingers up to someone who is incapable of detaining him no matter what he is doing, confidence will not be established or enhanced—in fact it will worsen.
	The Government must recognise that there are not enough police. Why are we not doing a New York? Presumably, because the money does not run to it. That is what the public fear. That is why people must be recruited who do not have the full powers of police—because if they did they would want to be paid what the police are paid. That is the problem that the Government face: they cannot attract the necessary increase in public confidence by those means. The public will think that they are doing it on the cheap.
	I hope that I am wrong about that and the Minister will say, "We are pressing ahead with increased police numbers and the more we get, the more we shall encourage chief constables to put them on the street". But I think that my analysis is correct. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister would tell me whether I am right or wrong.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I can answer his question about Sedgefield, which is relevant. The community force in Sedgefield, which is employed by the local authority, has no additional powers to those of members of the public. The Committee must understand that there is not a great deal of difference between the powers of the police and the powers of members of the public under common law. Officers of the community force enforce the law as best they can. They deal with the very things that cause problems in communities. That is not bank robberies, stabbings and murders but graffiti and youths causing annoyance, swearing and urinating in public places—the quality of life issues, as I call them. The community force provides a presence and confronts such behaviour.
	If the situation becomes confrontational to the extent that additional powers are required—it may well do and often does—community officers call the police to the scene of the incident and the police respond. They are in radio contact with the police and work closely with them. The noble and learned Lord asked what happens if people put two fingers up. After 35 years of policing, I can tell him that I have often had two figures put up to me. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has had the same experience.
	The answer is that one acts on one's wits. Of course, that does not always succeed and one often ends up being assaulted. No doubt that would happen to community support officers, but that is no reason for not having the provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill, it is an offence to assault or run away from a community support officer who is trying to enforce the law. There is no excuse for not applying the Bill's provisions. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord's question.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have not had a chance to intervene in the debate before now. Although I shall move an amendment later, I must justify my existence by speaking briefly now. I shall not speak specifically about community support officers, but about the powers that will be available to people such as community support officers or those from accredited organisations.
	I represent the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is about to launch a borough constable unit. My amendment will propose that the powers available to them be slightly increased. At this point, however, I want to support what has been said about the desirability of having additional or supplementary people on the streets. It has become increasingly apparent that the sort of minor offences that have been referred to are beginning to cause enormous grief to residents and to the public and that the police have neither the time nor the presence to deal with them. Such offences must be dealt with, if we are all to have a reasonable quality of life. We must ensure that our estates and streets are properly managed.
	I may intervene once or twice again, but I had thought that there might be a long distance between now and when we discuss my amendment, when I might be able to say more on the subject.

Lord Baker of Dorking: As a resident of South Kensington, in the Royal Borough, I am pleased to know that we will have borough constables, even with slightly enhanced powers. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by my noble friends, but I do not share them entirely. The proposal has quite a lot to be said for it, and I hope that the House will listen to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has had responsibility for dealing with the country's greatest policing problems.
	It is a little too facile to say, "If only we could have many more police officers". I increased the size of the police force, as did my noble friend Lord Waddington and my successor. I think I heard the previous Home Secretary say that he was increasing the size of the police force, and I dare say that the present Home Secretary says that he will increase it. It is a pity that we have not been a bit more successful in achieving that. If it were possible to increase the size of the police force significantly, all parts of the House would support that. However, there are difficulties, and we must accept that.
	The other difficulty is that today's police officer must be trained in a range of skills that is unbelievable compared to the training given to a police officer 50 years ago. He must be trained not only in the ordinary duties of policing our streets but in the difficult business of dealing with marital conflict, dealing with a rape scene and dealing with drunken louts turned out of clubs at 3 o'clock in the morning, which is a more intense problem than it was when the pubs closed at 10 o'clock or whenever it was. He must be trained in the complicated area of interview techniques, which, of course, have changed as a result of PACE and developments of PACE. He is a much more professional person than the bobby on the beat of 50 years ago. It seems sensible to try to find people who can do some of the lesser policing jobs with slightly less training. That is what this is about.
	Successive Home Secretaries have civilianised wherever they can. There has been much civilianisation in the big depots that control motorway surveillance. However, the question is whether we can do that on the beat, where officers will come into contact with the public. That is the issue about which my noble friend Lord Fowler spoke. Will it carry conviction? It will carry conviction in my borough, so I am pleased and relaxed about it, but we should address that problem.
	Thirty years ago, the Metropolitan Police were responsible for all stationary vehicle offences in London. If a car was parked illegally, the police had to deal with it. They had to arrange for it to be towed away and for the owner to be summoned and taken to court. That responsibility was given over to a group of people called traffic wardens. When traffic wardens were first appointed, we had exactly the same debate. We asked ourselves, "How can we give to traffic wardens the right to take away a vehicle that is owned by somebody? They are not as well trained; they are lightly trained". Now, we do it; we accept it automatically. Indeed, following the crisis on 11th September, when there was great pressure on security in London, the Metropolitan Police said that traffic wardens would take over all traffic responsibilities in London—the whole lot, the whole caboodle. That would be exercising police powers, but they were asked to do it in a crisis. I do not think that the liberties of London, as it were, were suddenly restricted by that. Therefore, I rather welcome the provision in the clause, and I hope that not many bars will be put in its way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Condon, also mentioned the security responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police. Some of those require very specialist training. However, many embassies have a police officer standing outside for 365 days and nights a year—and nothing happens. There are embassies at which a lot can happen, and that requires particular training. However, there are many embassies at which absolutely nothing happens. Is that a sensible use of a police officer? I do not think that it is. As Home Secretary, I had protection, as did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I have been happy with someone who was not a fully trained police officer standing outside my house. We should accept the fact that there are various activities that could suitably be carried out by other people. I hope that this is a gateway to that.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the Minister and to some of my noble friends if, like my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, I am a tiny piece of grit in the collective shoe on this issue. I recall that, at Second Reading, I expressed greater support for and receptivity to the concept that we are discussing than some of my noble friends.
	I appreciate that my principal exposure to policing, apart from Northern Ireland, has been in London, with the Met and the City of London Police. I acknowledge, of course, that I have never been a Home Office Minister and have not had that experience, but, during the previous Parliament, I could not go to a community meeting in Westminster—whether it be to do with an amenity society, residents' association or any of the three admirable police community consultative groups—without the issue of police numbers in Westminster and the police presence on the streets being raised. My noble friends Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner of Parkes alluded to similar experiences.
	In part, that was against a background of complaints from the suburbs that they were being drained of police so that demonstrations in central London could be policed. However, it was also against a background of the loss of manpower from well policed areas of London—I use the phrase "well policed" in all its senses—to other areas of the city that had a faster deteriorating crime rate. In an ideal world, as other noble Lords have said, we would prefer full-time, regular police officers. However, it is true, in harness with this, that some duties that must be fulfilled are a less than good use of full-time officers, with a consequential dilution of their morale.
	Given the difficulties with ethnic recruitment to the Met, I am conscious of the remarkable success of the Territorial Army in recruiting ethnic minorities. In the Green Jackets' TA unit in Mayfair, about half the recruits are from ethnic minorities and about half are from single-parent families. Incidentally, there is much to be said for a uniform and discipline in giving structure to the lives of the young people who come from such backgrounds. I am attracted by the use of this vehicle to draw ethnic minorities into the police in that preliminary way, in exactly the same way as the RUC Reserve was used in Northern Ireland, giving people the chance to experience policing, before deciding whether to become full-time officers.
	There is a genuine irony in our attacking the Government for greater centralisation if we are not prepared to contemplate the possibility of decentralised experiment. Of course, as I also said at Second Reading, there are real problems in determining the powers of the new categories of officer and securing public recognition of those powers. However, we cannot discuss them, as we will do later, without assenting, at least, to the idea that there are parts of the country where such officers might be valuable.
	I close with a reflection from the mid-1980s when I was the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise, which is obviously another law enforcement agency. I made 16 full day visits to Customs and Excise in different parts of the country. My experience was that, anywhere south of Watford, the only subject which Customs officers wanted to discuss was pay. North of Watford, that issue never arose.
	It is a mistake to see the country as unremittingly homogeneous. There are different needs in different places. We should not forget that policing started in London because that was where the problems were.

Lord Elton: Perhaps I may try to put the matter into perspective. The amendment only seeks to delete subsection (1)(a) of Clause 33 and we have three other subsections all aimed at recruiting civilians into policemen's uniforms doing policemen's work. Therefore, will the Minister tell us what proportion of personnel he hopes will be recruited under each of the four provisions?
	It seems that people have been reacting to the amendment as though it were going to scrub out all civilian recruits of the new kind to the police service. That is very far from what will actually occur. The ones who are recruited as investigating, detention and escort officers, can all replace fully trained officers to become visible, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, wants, and perhaps be available to be accompanied by the people under subsection (1)(a) which we are seeking to delete.

Lord Rooker: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the answer is most certainly not. That is because this is an enabling power. It would be ludicrous for a Minister to stand up and give targets for community support, investigative, detention and escort officers. Amendments have been tabled relating to each type of officer. They propose either to scrub them out or to look at their powers and functions. At the appropriate time I will be happy to do that. However, bearing in mind all the previous debates, as well as the fact that this is an enabling power, it would be inappropriate for Ministers to give targets. It is a matter for the chief constables.
	I welcome the debate and all the points raised, although I wish the last five speeches had been the first five speeches. From the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, onwards, the debate seemed to me utterly realistic and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, made my winding up speech for me in a much shorter time than I am afraid I am going to take. I am extremely grateful for what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Baker.
	The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right in saying that incredibly complex training is required of today's police. The noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Elton, referred to half-trained people being used to police the streets. That is wrong and I shall turn to that matter later.
	I have lived in London for many years but I do not count myself as a Londoner. I learn as I go along. There are issues relating to London in respect of which some boroughs are setting up their own policing function. There will be a combination of the community support officers and the accreditation schemes, to which we will turn later. They have the stamp of approval of the commissioner in London. It is better to use such people and schemes rather than having freelance people working for boroughs or private companies on private estates. Such a framework reassures the public. If efforts are led by the boroughs, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, so much the better for the accreditation schemes. There is a lot of merit in them.
	The answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is yes, yes and yes. It also leads to the conclusion that the fear of crime is much too high. It is a major problem. However much we talk about crime statistics going down in one area, or up in another, the fact is that the public's fear of crime far outweighs the reality of what is happening in their local communities. We must recognise that fact.
	There are too few police officers. I said during the course of our earlier debate that there is a target to achieve 130,000 officers by spring of next year. I also said that the Home Secretary would set a new target because that gave the lie to the suggestion that once we had achieved the target the number would remain stable and alteration would be only by means of community support officers and others. That is not our intention, by any means.
	I am not going to argue about the numbers. One of the statistics that I always remember from 1979—probably the trickiest of the seven general elections I fought—was that there were then 15,000 more police officers in the country than there were in 1974. I do not believe that the then Labour government received any credit for it, but it is a figure that I have always remembered. I accept the number of police and special officers has gone down in the past few years and that civilian support has gone up.
	The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I were constituency neighbours for many years. In response to his remarks, let us suppose that in opposition someone had come to me from the then government when he was a member of the Cabinet and said, "You've got real problems on an estate in a ward in your constituency. There are real problems with what would be relatively minor offences but to the people concerned the crimes are the most serious matters in their lives. Balls are knocked up against gable walls hour after hour after hour; bikes are everywhere; dogs are fouling the pavements; and youths are messing around with alcohol. There are not enough police to do the job but we have a few uniformed blokes organised and controlled by the police. Do you want them?" Does the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, really think that I would have attacked a government who would have come along and said, "This is probably a good idea. It may help your constituents"? No, of course I would not and he knows that.
	The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are important. The priority is right. I agree and I believe that the public will agree that we would rather have police. The specials are not always available when one needs them and the community support officers are a uniformed presence with certain very limited powers. I agree with the noble Baroness's analysis.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made the point about the diary of the police officer. We debated that matter at Second Reading. I do not have the figure in front of me but I believe that either 43 per cent or 47 per cent of a police officer's time is spent at the station. Why is that? It is because of the paperwork. The average amount of time spent on the paperwork required of a police officer in respect of an arrest of any kind is three and a half hours in the station. Whatever the crime, the police officer spends three and a half hours off the street and in the station.
	What is proposed in the clause—the detention, investigation and escort officers—is intended to cut the amount of time that a police constable is in the station when he could be back out on the beat, as set out in the White Paper. There is nothing new there. The argument is not that the police do not want to go out and are hiding in the station, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Far from it, they are tied down in the station because of the paperwork and everything else. I suspect that we have all seen what happens. As I say, the average time is three and a half hours off the beat.
	I do not want to separate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, from the last five speakers, but the problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, came in the middle. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke from his knowledge of Hendon college. I have none and I must make a point of visiting the college. He said that it was full. We can say with some certainty that we will have 130,000 police officers by spring of next year because we know the retirement rates, the wastage rates, the ill health rates and the recruitment and training rates. We can be confident that we can hit that target. I believe that is a valuable point and I am grateful that he was able to make it.
	Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I do not believe that the community support officers are at odds with tradition because traditions have changed. We shall come to that later in the debate.
	My noble friend Lord Mackenzie mentioned park keepers and conductors on buses. In some ways it is true that community support officers will fit more neatly into the accreditation schemes. However, it is a fact that we used to have more of a uniformed presence about. I can remember that even over my short years. It used to be said of the park keeper, "The parky's coming after you. You'd better scamper". I recall that at the time I was scrumping apples in someone's back garden. Traditions have changed, and no longer do we have a uniformed presence in our public spaces.
	In that sense, I do not believe that the proposal to introduce community support officers, to be taken up at the wish of chief police officers, goes against tradition. Such officers will fit in better with modern society and will meet the changes that have taken place.
	Again, my noble friend Lord Mackenzie made the point that the problems are not found only in London. I accept that, although I freely admit that much of the pressure to embrace community support officers has come from the Met. It may well be that other chief constables will sit back in thinking mode to watch and discuss what happens in London. However, they will have to be careful because London is in no way a mirror image of the rest of the country. Far from it. The rest of the country can be a great deal nicer. But it could be said that London will act as a virtual pilot for the rest of the country.
	Mr Blair has told me that he sees no problem whatever in the recruitment of community support officers. That brings me to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who pointed out in our brief discussion that community support officers may well be able to strike a better balance with the ethnic minorities—as is also the case with the specials—than is possible in the regular force. Perhaps it will be a better route for recruitment. I believe that there is a good deal of support for and agreement with that view among professional police officers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was far too harsh on the issue of training. He criticised subparagraph (c) of Clause 22(3). However, subsection (3) states:
	"A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person—
	(c) has received adequate training in the carrying out . . . of the powers",
	which the officer will allow that person. It is true that there is to be a "pick and mix" menu. The idea that, say, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis would permit half-baked training to meet the criteria that he—not Ministers—will have chosen for community support officers is a bit of an attack on the professionalism and the seriousness of the police with regard to training. There is not a shred of evidence that the commissioner or any other chief officer would send people out who were not trained. They will be trained to do a different job from that of a regular constable. I accept that. But it is a question of horses for courses in that respect.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the first priority must be more police on the beat, which was repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It is a fair point. The noble Lord went on to list three areas within the Met where community support officers could prove to be extremely useful, on occasion working alongside regular officers but not necessarily all the time. For example, if a roadblock has to be set up and searches carried out, surely the job of patrolling the cordon of the roadblock while regular officers carry out the work of stopping cars and conducting searches is an ideal role for a community support officer. It would free up regular officers for their work. Indeed, in London community support officers could prove extremely useful in the traffic endeavour.
	The noble Lord also reiterated a point he made on Second Reading—that community support officers could well enhance the security effort following the events of September 11th, a point that many noble Lords brought up. Many police officers were drafted in, but then we were told that they were bored out of their minds because nothing happened. We were lucky that nothing happened, but that was because there was a uniformed presence on the streets. The point is that we will never know. It was a precautionary move, wholly justified in the circumstances; indeed, it remains so. We are therefore wholly justified in looking at other ways of ensuring that all the tasks set for the police are carried out.
	Although the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was not totally supportive, by and large he appeared to want to see how this would work—I am paraphrasing from my notes, which are not that good. We are holding here very much a Second Reading debate on whether we should have community support officers. I accept that, because we are not debating their powers. We shall come to that in Schedule 4, where Members of the other place sought to limit the options for chief constables.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, expressed a fundamental point and put forward a fairly extreme view: no community support officers, whatever their powers. That takes the extreme view reflected in the purpose of the amendment which I hope that the Committee will not support because it would certainly negate the remainder of our debate looking at the powers, and it is too extreme.
	I turn now to my speaking notes, because I must put one or two points on the record that may not be in direct response to the remarks of noble Lords. There are no powers of arrest for community support officers. However, as one noble Lord pointed out, the introduction of such officers marks one of the key proposals in the White Paper and we consider it to be one of the major elements of this piece of legislation. We make no bones about that. This is enabling legislation, it is not prescriptive and it will be up to the chief officer to decide whether to go this way. I shall make the point again that the Metropolitan Police have argued strongly for such a proposal, given the scale of the demand for officers to provide a counter-terrorism presence. However, the role of the community support officer will have a wider application.
	The British Crime Survey shows that, while the incidence of crime is generally falling, the fear of crime is not. It is important to take that fact on board. There is an unfulfilled public expectation to see a police presence on every street tackling low level crime and anti-social behaviour. After all, most people expressing a fear of crime because they have come up against it do not do so because they have been involved in a bank robbery or a terrorist offence. They have not become entangled in major, serious crimes. Rather it is youths misusing alcohol and behaving in an anti-social manner. While that might be classed as low level crime in the hierarchy of crimes, for the individual suffering from it, it is the thing that sends them out of their mind.
	People can become absolutely obsessed with what happens once local youths and miscreants start to misbehave. Those petty crimes can take over their lives and make them physically ill. That was certainly my experience when representing areas of Birmingham where there were such difficulties. I could not go to the chief constable and say, "Put your top man, or your top lady, on to this". I knew that there were other problems. I could not claim that those petty crimes were the most important policing issue in the City of Birmingham, but for my constituents it was the thing that was ruining their lives.
	At that level we can make a difference. Giving a lever to chief constables in the form of community support officers is what it is all about: it will help them to make a difference. Initial audits and consultations carried out by the crime and disorder reduction partnerships have shown a strong public concern about these relatively minor aspects, sometimes no more than noisy youths. Many people suffer from the problems of anti-social, sub-criminal behaviour which can blight entire communities as well as individuals.
	Community support officers will not replace police officers. As I have said, we are committed to increasing police numbers to the figure of 130,000 and we shall set a new target when we reach it. Community support officers are not intended to have the full range of powers of a regular constable or a special. I remind the Committee that specials are not civilians playing policeman; they are fully attested constables but, by definition, they are not always around when they are needed. They are not available at 3.30 in the afternoon when someone might be playing up near the entrance and exit of a school. Someone must be sent along to sort it out and to show a presence. That is the kind of problem which can be dealt with by community support officers.
	Community support officers will free up regular officers to carry out the duties which require their full powers. The role of the community support officer will be limited and will be clearly focused. Unlike regular beat officers, whom they may support, community support officers are unlikely routinely to be called away to deal with more serious crimes. Unlike special constables, who are generally only available at weekends—by definition they have full-time jobs elsewhere—the community support officers will be available at the times of the day when the chief officer requires them; for example, for transport routes in the middle of the day and for estates and communities in the school holidays. There are people who dread the onset of school holidays because of minor crime. If the chief constable has the resource of community support officers working with other organisations in known areas, he can nip it in the bud.
	There are a number of safeguards throughout this part of the Bill—which I shall not debate in detail now—in regard to the designation of support staff and the exercise by them of these limited police powers. The Bill provides that the chief officer must be satisfied that a person is suitable to carry out the relevant functions, is capable of carrying them out and is adequately trained. The chief officer may modify or remove the designation, including the powers conferred on community support officers, at any time he chooses.
	Such support staff, employed by a police authority and under the direction and control of the relevant officer, will come within the remit of the independent police commission, as we discussed earlier in Committee, and will come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice. So, to that extent, people can be reassured that there will be a uniformed presence, with extremely limited powers, in areas where people's lives are made a misery.
	It is worth the effort to allow the Met, or any chief constable who wishes to do so, to pilot this operation—it is not something that we are imposing—and we could then see how it works and if it is up to the job, which we believe it will be. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment to a Division.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an amazing debate in which we have inevitably gone across the length and breadth of this subject, including the community safety accreditation schemes. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I express the hope that we do not have to go over it all in duplicate when we come to those schemes; that would be superfluous.
	I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate—even to those behind me who disagree with the amendment. I do not detract from what we have suggested and I will explain why. Among other matters, we are talking about the quality of policing and we should first get the proposal into perspective. The amendment refers only to community support officers who, if we accept the designation, will be civilians already employed by and doing a full-time job for the police.
	If we accept the designation, one of the qualifications on the use of these people is that it will apply only during their normal employment hours. So very often they will not be available on the street at those times when there will be, perhaps, most pressure. We need to face that.

Lord Condon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Am I to understand that he believes that it is only civilians currently working for the police who will be redesignated as community support officers? If that is his belief, he is mistaken. The idea is that hundreds of new people will be recruited, who will become employees and therefore able to be community support officers and used for whatever hours it is necessary for them to be used.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It may be that I have misunderstood the Bill, but if the police are to be given the resources to employ many additional civilians over and above those they already employ, they will also have resources to employ many more policemen. I believe my qualification is appropriate, but perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am incorrect. It is an important point. I certainly was not aware that the police were going to be resourced to employ many extra civilians—buckshee, so to speak—to fulfil this specific role. I thought that we were dealing with existing police civilians.
	Let us get the civilians in perspective. New York has often been referred to, but it has more than 40,000 policemen as opposed to what we hope will be more than 30,000 in London very shortly, which will be very welcome. But, rather differently from London, New York has around 40,000 civilians as well, whereas in London the figure is somewhere around 7,000 civilians. I question whether many civilians will be available to become community support officers and fulfil this function—particularly bearing in mind that they will also be asked to become investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers.
	I am sure that the Minister will intervene and tell me if I am wrong. Are we talking about new civilians additionally employed to fulfil this role, or are we talking about existing civilians?

Lord Rooker: That has never been the issue. It has not been raised in the debate. They will be new people, over and above those who are there now, subject to the decision of chief constables. Of course there are resource implications, but the powers conferred on people under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)—if I can put it that way rather than read them all out again—are quite different and quite new.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have no difficulty with the powers, but I do have difficulty with the function. If we are to employ additional people, so be it. There is plenty of what I call "constable substituting" work on which these people can be used. That will release more constables to go out onto the streets—and it is on the streets that constables should be used. If the police cannot do that, then we should use special constables first and foremost. To do anything else would be to admit that we can no longer police the streets in the conventional way and to admit that we will have to devalue the whole service that we provide to the public.
	I do not find that a satisfactory proposition. That is why we suggest removing the community support officer from the Bill and, when we get to the community safety accreditation schemes, accrediting these people as special constables.
	In his response, the Minister gave the impression that he was thinking about special constables in their existing context. He said that special constables are available only at particular hours; that they are not available when they are wanted and so on. Of course they are part-timers and volunteers. That is the basis on which special constables are used at the present time—I accept that—but we envisage a complete change in the approach to special constables.
	As I have said, the legislation which governs the appointment of special constables is very simple. It goes back to the 1996 Act, which states:
	"The chief officer of police of the police force maintained for a police area may, in accordance with regulations . . . appoint special constables".
	It continues:
	"The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables".
	If the existing regulatory structure does not give the flexibility required to put these people into the category of special constables and to train them accordingly, we would be happy to help the Government to alter the regulatory basis on which special constables work. But the flexibility is certainly there in the legislation and it could be done.
	We are not arguing about ends; we are arguing about means. We all want the same ends, and we should remember that throughout our discussions. Our disagreement is over the means. We believe that there is an issue of quality here. We do not want to devalue the quality of the service to the public on the street.
	It is worth picking up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, about accreditation schemes. Schemes such as that in Sedgefield exist under the present law. We do not need to change the law to keep them going. Such schemes will unquestionably continue.
	Although, as the Minister says, we are not giving community safety officers powers of arrest, we are certainly giving them powers to detain, and powers to use "reasonable force" to detain. One can split hairs and debate the meaning of words; but if a person has power to detain and power to use reasonable force to detain in particular circumstances, they may not be powers of arrest, but the distinction is difficult to make. It would make for an interesting debate in a court of law.

Lord Rooker: It seems quite simple. If there is a power of arrest, all the rigmarole of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act comes into force. There is a big distinction between power of detention and power of arrest.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, I accept that. But what is the reality? If someone out on the street detains someone, where do we go from there? He waits for a constable to arrive, who then has to go through all the rest of the procedure. But the effect is the same. It will be the support officer who starts the process.
	We ought to recognise that this is a very serious change. We shall be putting civilians in a very difficult situation. Yes, I accept that the chief constable concerned, or the commissioner, has to be satisfied that such people are adequately trained to do the job. I suspect that that will be quite difficult.
	Our amendment relates to an argument about means, not about ends. It is not illogical. If we go down this route, we shall be devaluing the service that we give to the public. I have listened to the various comments and shall consider them carefully between now and Report. We may well need to return to the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 186A not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 187:
	Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
	"(2A) A Director General may designate any person who—
	(a) is an employee of his Service Authority, and
	(b) is under the direction and control of that Director General,
	as an investigating officer."

Lord Rooker: In moving this amendment, I shall speak briefly to the other government amendments grouped with it.
	These amendments are intended to bring the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service into line with the Bill's provisions for allowing support staff to be designated as investigating officers.
	I must make it clear that the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are not police forces. Non-police members are employed by the respective service authorities and are under the control of their respective directors-general. In the same way as for police forces, there can be much value in having civilian investigating officers in specialist areas such as financial and information technology crime. That is particularly relevant for the National Crime Squad, which houses the Hi-Tech Crime Unit, and for NCIS, some of whose personnel work in the unit as part a close-knit team. In addition, both organisations have experience and expertise in investigating financial crime, as well as other specialist work.
	Under the amendments, the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 4 will be applied to NCS and NCIS in the same manner as they currently apply to forces. I should stress that the amendments are concerned only with the designation of support staff as investigating officers. Given the different role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service as compared with the 43 forces, there is no requirement—and these amendments do not provide—for the directors-general to designate persons as community support officers, detention officers or escort officers. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 188:
	Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
	"(2A) Before exercising his powers under this section, a chief officer of police of any police force must submit to the police authority maintaining that force a draft scheme (a "designation scheme") setting out—
	(a) the purpose of the proposed designation scheme relating to the designation of persons under this section and the expected benefits for the policing of the area;
	(b) how the designation scheme contributes to the three year strategy issued by the authority under section 6A of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) and the local policing plan issued by that authority under section 8 of that Act;
	(c) the extent and nature of the powers he proposes to confer on designated persons;
	(d) how the suitability and capability of persons to be designated under the scheme will be assessed;
	(e) the arrangements for the provision of training to such designated persons;
	(f) the arrangements for the provision of equipment to such designated persons and any health and safety implications of the proposals; and
	(g) an estimate of the direct and ancillary costs of the scheme to the police fund kept by the police authority.
	(2B) The chief officer shall not exercise his powers under this section until the police authority has approved a designation scheme for this purpose.
	(2C) Before approving any scheme, or any modified or revised scheme, which differs from the draft scheme submitted by the chief officer, the police authority shall consult the chief officer.
	(2D) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96 of the Police Act 1996.
	(2E) The chief officer may from time to time submit to the police authority a revised or modified draft scheme for its consideration.
	(2F) It shall be the responsibility of any police authority which has approved any scheme under subsection (2A) above to keep itself informed of the workings of the scheme, including, in particular to monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority."

Lord Bradshaw: I let this matter go by, and I do not want to delay the Committee. The answer given by the Minister at the beginning of our debates today about the police authority being included in consultation was sufficient for me. I beg to move.

Baroness Serota: The amendment is proposed: page 32, line 2, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

Lord Rooker: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?

Lord Bradshaw: In the light of the Minister's earlier assurances, and having given Members of the Committee the opportunity to intervene, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 189:
	Page 32, line 3, after "police" insert "or a Director General"

Lord Rooker: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 190:
	Page 32, line 10, at end insert "; and
	(d) is properly equipped to carry out those functions"

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 192. Both deal with a simple issue—namely, equipment and training—which we have to a considerable degree crawled all over already, so I need not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. We thought it worth tabling the amendments in order to ensure that community safety officers out on the street are properly equipped, and that they will have received proper training. We have covered most of this ground, but the Minister may feel the need to reinforce what he has already said. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am obliged to reply to any amendment moved from the Front Bench, but I need use only about a quarter of my briefing.
	These amendments deal with two issues about designated persons—the provision of equipment and the provision of training. We share the concerns expressed that the civilians designated under the provisions of this clause should, and indeed must, be properly equipped and trained while undertaking their duties. However, we do not necessarily believe that we need to provide for that on the face of the Bill, as Amendments No. 190 and 192 seek to do.
	It will be for the chief officer—the chief constable, and the commissioner in the Met—to ensure, as is presently the case, that his employees are given the proper equipment to undertake their duties safely. Like any employer, he will be responsible for their safety and welfare. It is appropriate to allow for maximum flexibility and to let the chief officers decide how their staff, whether police officers or civilians, are equipped. We do not believe that this is a matter for the Bill, serious and important though it is.

Lord Renton: I rarely express doubt about what the noble Lord has said, but I feel that my noble friend's proposal is not an unwise precaution. Yes, nearly always one will be able to take it for granted that these extra people with extra powers will be properly equipped. But just occasionally there may be someone who is not properly equipped. If he cannot point to any statutory requirement that he should be, then the matter will not be fulfilled. This is a wise amendment. I ask the Minister to give it further consideration.

Lord Rooker: We have given thought to the important issue raised in the amendment. The civilians charged with the limited powers provided by the Bill will necessarily have to be supplied with the relevant training and equipment to exercise those powers. In some respects, they are different from regular police constables—their powers are different and their training and equipment will be different. Nevertheless, it is the duty and responsibility of the chief constable, as the employer, to make sure that they have adequate training and equipment to carry out satisfactorily the duties that he has designated they should have. He might not give them all the full powers, so they might not need all the necessary equipment or training of the regular constable. The training must be specific to the powers they will exercise. We should trust the judgment of the chief constables, who will not knowingly send their police officers—whether regulars, specials or community support officers—out on a job without proper equipment.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise for not having been here for the debate on Amendment No. 186. Did the Minister deal with the important issue of training in his reply to that debate? Did he indicate the likely length of any training? The community support officers must have appropriate training before they can do the job.

Lord Renton: And equipment.

Lord Rooker: I do not claim that I gave a comprehensive reply, but I pointed out that the Bill says that the chief officer, the chief constable or the commissioner, in the case of the Met,
	"shall not designate a person"—
	to be a community support officer or one of the other officers—
	"unless he is satisfied that"—
	among other things—
	"that person . . .
	has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation".
	There is a pick and mix menu of powers that the chief police officer can designate to the community support officer. They are all minor in the grand scale of things, but they do not all have to be awarded. The officers must be properly trained. That is a legal commitment on the face of the Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Carlisle, because this is an important issue, particularly for those who will be involved in the future. I take some comfort from the Minister's comments about the responsibilities of the chief constable, as the employer. I shall study those words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 191:
	Page 32, line 10, at end insert "; and
	(d) has access to appropriate means of personal protection"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This amendment differs from the one we have just discussed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, in that my concern is the personal security of the community support officers. We were told at our briefing with the police that they would not be allowed to carry a baton, a spray or any means of self-defence. When I asked why that was so and how they would manage in a dangerous situation, I was told that they would not be put in a dangerous situation. If there was a dangerous situation, full-time policemen would be used.
	How can anyone predict where a dangerous situation will arise? The current spate of muggings in London have all happened in unexpected situations. Nobody who has suffered from the present habit of following people home from events and attacking them on their doorstep, as happened recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was anticipating it. If they had been anticipating it, it might well not have happened. It is much more serious if the attacker is armed with a knife.
	It is wrong for the officers concerned not to have some form of self-protection. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on Amendment No. 186, said that you quite often end up being assaulted. I am sure that that is true.
	We were also told that community support officers would have differently marked uniforms from the ordinary police. That means that it will be obvious that they are the ones who have no personal protection. They are allowed to use reasonable force—presumably that applies to self-defence—but hand-to-hand combat is rather different from having at least a truncheon. I seek some reassurance on that. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be very brief in support of my noble friend. I cannot put a date on it, but some time in the 1980s I read an account of a situation within the Metropolitan Police district when a single constable, perhaps only 21 years old, is standing in the street and has to take a decision on whether to stop a car that has four people in it who look both disagreeable and suspect. At that moment, the rule of law in that part of London rests on the shoulders of that young man. Against that background, the questions that my noble friend has raised require a serious response from the Government, which I am confident they will get.

Lord Monson: The noble Baroness has made a very good case for the amendment. Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Condon, nor the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, is in his place at the moment, but I am sure that they would be able to confirm that an extremely high proportion of police officers are injured, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area. One man in his 30s, whose father works for me, spent many years in the Army doing a dangerous job to do with explosives and was never injured in any way, but since he left the Army and joined the Metropolitan Police he has been seriously injured by a suspected drug dealer, to the extent that he almost had to be invalided out.
	As the noble Baroness says, nobody can foretell the situations in which such officers might find themselves. We cannot be certain that it will be possible to keep them away from trouble. If we want recruitment to go at all well, we have to accept an amendment such as this; otherwise nobody will volunteer for the job.

Lord Dixon-Smith: In principle we support the amendment, which is a more detailed reprise of the previous amendment.

Lord Rooker: I hope to give a serious reply, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, requested. Community support officers are not second class police officers. They will play a complementary role. That is very important.
	Nobody can forecast all the circumstances in which they will find themselves, but it is not the intention that the role and powers of community support officers will require them to become involved in unarmed combat, as one noble Lord said. We all share the concerns of the noble Baroness that civilians designated under the clause should be properly and appropriately protected while undertaking their duties, but we do not think that we need to put that on the face of the Bill.
	There have been some scare stories in the newspapers, but we do not envisage community support officers carrying CS spray and batons or getting into situations in which they might need to use such equipment. On the other hand, we have made it clear that, while we do not think that we need to specify appropriate means of personal protection in the Bill, a code of practice will be issued under this chapter that will include guidance on levels of protection for designated officers. In some ways, that will have the same practical effect as the amendment. The intention is the same, but we approach the issue from another route.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I am still concerned. We were told categorically that community support officers would not be able to carry any form of protection. If that is true, we must have some reference in the Bill to protection for them. It would be very wrong not to do so.
	I emphasise again that no one can tell where they will have to confront a difficult situation. All the current attacks in London are happening unexpectedly, often in areas formerly considered safe. The police officer who spoke to us said that officers sent to one particular station which he mentioned were sent with full riot gear. That is fine. However, ordinary civilians who have been stabbed and killed were walking along streets in areas that they thought were safe.
	I believe that we need this provision. Although I shall leave the Minister to think about it, I shall be considering whether to return to it myself. I feel strongly about the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 193:
	Page 32, line 13, leave out from "duties" to "that" in line 15.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 33(5) states:
	"A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person".
	That implies, at the very least, that every individual might have a different designation; I do not see how it could imply anything else. That simply would not be satisfactory and could cause absolute confusion in the minds of the public. Although they are in a different uniform from that of the police, people in uniform could have variable powers taken from a basket containing a slightly larger number of powers. I do not think that that would be sensible. We do not like the devaluation aspects of the proposal, but if we have to put this type of sub-police into operation, we should ensure that there is absolute, crystal clarity about their function and how they are to work. I think that there would be great difficulty if we did anything else.
	I suppose—just placing a saving bet; we have not tabled an amendment to this effect, but I offer it to the Minister to consider—that if a chief constable wished to pick from the basket of powers, at least in his force area, everyone should have the same powers. I think that that might reduce the potential for confusion. If different powers were held by each individual, and one of those individuals stopped or attempted to check someone, the first words that he would hear would be, "Show me your accreditation. I want to know if you have the power to stop me". I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend does not mind, but a very small drafting amendment would have to be made if Amendment No. 193 is made. It is that, in line 16, "of that Schedule" would have to be changed to "of Schedule 4".

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for moving this group of amendments. I share his view that this part of the Bill gives the chief constable discretion to vary the powers that his designation shall confer upon the officer concerned. On page 110, one finds the related provision of Schedule 4. The issue becomes clear in paragraph 4(1), which states:
	"This paragraph"—
	which is the paragraph conferring the power to use reasonable force to detain persons—
	"applies where . . . a designation under section 33 applies this paragraph to a person to whom any or all of paragraphs 1 to 3 are also applied".
	Although it is a short point, it is one that is replicated in the case of accredited community support officers—to whose situation I perhaps rashly strayed in our previous debate. It is the same point. If the public are to be confident in this innovation, they will have to know what powers these people shall have. If these people are to convey and carry credibility, they should be able to explain quite simply to the person to whom they are addressing their powers, whether those powers are designated under Clause 33 or accredited under Clause 35.
	I hope that I am not wrong—in the sense that this discretion is not granted—but if I am, I have to say that the drafting is very obscure. I do not believe that it makes that clear.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have no emotional capital tied up in the example that I gave on Second Reading, but I shall remind the House of it. There was a time in London theatreland when Camden Borough Council suddenly decided that it would put its parking regulations on a different basis from that of the London Borough of Westminster. Those who were parking their cars to attend the theatre were careless about the location of the borough boundaries, and they were extremely offended when they discovered that they were being penalised for parking their car one street away from where they would have been in perfectly good shape.
	It is a genuine dilemma. It is wrong to put these officers—if the experiment goes forward, we would wish them extremely well—in a position in which, in the early stages, they could be penalised by the possibility of a misunderstanding. As I have acknowledged, there is some irony in these remarks in that we generally urge decentralisation on the Government and seek to avoid centralisation.

Lord Rooker: This group of amendments raises a useful point. It would, however, have a perverse consequence which I shall outline later. Although I cannot prejudge what will happen, I can well foresee different chief constables making different use of the "menu". If they make different use of the powers so that their community support officers have different powers, the public might well wonder why that has happened. The point, however, would arise when they went into a different police force area, and powers currently vary between different police force areas. I should add that police authority boundaries usually coincide with main roads or railway lines, a bit like constituency boundaries do.
	I do not know whether, in designating the community support officers within his force, a chief constable would ever think it wise to give individual officers different levels of power. Although it is true that he is designating "persons", and assigning different powers would be technically possible, I do not think that such an arrangement would be a practical runner. I should develop the argument, however, as the matter is not that clear cut.
	As I have said, subsection (5) of Clause 33 currently enables the chief officer to use appropriate parts of the schedule as a menu from which he can select the powers appropriate for the deployment. In theory, that could mean that all staff have different powers. However, we believe that, in practice, there may be only two or three groups of powers for each category of support staff. Therefore, across a police force, each designated category should have the same powers. However, there will be four levels of officer, which are outlined in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 33(5).
	As I understand it, the Metropolitan Police have indicated that they will establish just three categories of community support officer—dealt with in Clause 33(5)(a)—whom they have called auxiliaries. They include security auxiliaries, Transport for London auxiliaries and community auxiliaries, and they will perform the functions described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	The powers extended to each category of community support officer would be appropriate to their function. For example, the Metropolitan Police's security auxiliaries would clearly need the powers in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule 4 to enforce cordoned areas established under the Terrorism Act 2000 and to stop and search vehicles under Sections 44 and 45 of that Act. This may also be the case in other parts of the country. Different forces will have different functions for their CSOs and hence different combinations of powers. That is a slightly different matter to the parking restrictions in boroughs that were mentioned.
	Similar arguments could apply to other categories of support staff. Chief officers might prefer support staff to have only some, not all, of the detention office powers in order to suit local policing arrangements. The clause enables chief officers to "mould" the designation of support staff to suit local needs. We want to retain that flexibility. The amendment removes that local flexibility.
	By extending the full range of powers to support staff from the outset we would prejudge the roles that they are to fulfil. We have aimed throughout these clauses to enable rather than prescribe. The amendment would require that, for example, a detention officer who would be dealing only with handling people in custody would also have to be trained in interviewing suspects. As the designated officer may not be using all his powers his training would become "rusty" for those powers he did not use. But there would still be the chance that he would be asked to use these powers in the future. He would have received training but would be out of practice. We need to trust that chief constables will exercise their discretion in specifying powers from the "menus". The code of practice under Clause 39 will help them achieve that.
	The noble Lord argued that the public will be confused if CSOs have different powers in different parts of the country. I do not accept that. That may be the case as regards different parts of the force. That is the real bones of the argument. I hope that the code of practice will resolve that matter. This is an important point. I am glad that it has been raised as it has enabled some of the issues we are discussing to be put on record.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he think it right that there should be an à la carte menu, as it were, for chief constables within their force, or within particular districts of their force, or should there be a set menu? The noble Lord said that he did not think that that difficulty would arise in practice. However, if it were made clear that everyone within an area should have the same powers, that would overcome the difficulty that some of us on this side of the Chamber detect. It is one which I mentioned in relation to safety officers under Clause 35. It is terribly important that these people should be able to state clearly, "I have the same powers as my colleague over there and my colleague over there" when asked for the authority by which they presume to interfere with someone's liberty in the street. That is the short point. I dare say that the noble Lord will not be able to reply to that point now, but I ask again whether it should be an à la carte or a set menu?

Lord Rooker: I cannot prejudge the position. One would imagine that all the officers within an area performing the same function would have the same powers. If their functions differ, the position may be slightly different. I refer to the position in London. That is rather a bad example as I shall dig myself into a hole if I am not careful. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they will establish three categories of community support officers. The Transport for London auxiliaries would police the transport routes in London. I presume they would be clearly identified as transport auxiliaries and would all have the same powers. Therefore, there would be no argument about that. I presume that the security auxiliaries would be designated in a similar way. We shall give further thought to this issue to ensure that the code of practice overcomes the problems that the Committee has identified. The public must not be confused. That is an important point. We do not want the public to be confused. We do not want some barrack room troublemaker to play off one community support officer against another if he finds out that one has powers which another does not. That point must be taken on board.

Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a useful discussion. I am grateful for my noble friends' contributions. We should remember that subsection (5) of Clause 33 already specifies different menus for different designations. Subsection (5) refers to Schedule 4 and states that,
	"the applicable Part of that Schedule is—
	"(a) in the case of a person designated as a community support
	officer, Part 1;
	(b) in the case of a person designated as an investigating officer,
	Part 2".
	But the fact of the matter is that within each part you can still cherry pick. I recognise what the Minister said with regard to the specific problems of London, but I suspect that the commissioner for the Met would deprive himself of a certain amount of operational flexibility if he said that certain people could operate only on the Underground and others could operate only somewhere else and so on. We need to think seriously about this issue before we return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 196:
	Page 32, line 22, leave out "A person" and insert "An employee of a police authority or of a Service Authority"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 197:
	Page 32, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Dixon-Smith: Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of Clause 33, which this amendment seeks to delete, restricts the power of a person to operate as a community support officer. Under the Bill a community support officer is authorised to work only during his hours of employment. Policemen go off duty but that does not seem to cause any problems with regard to performing their functions. Occasionally, they perform entirely appropriate functions when they are off duty. That does not appear to cause any problems. The Bill seems to impose an unreasonable restriction. Subsection (6) of Clause 33 states:
	"A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section—
	"(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment".
	I believe that that constitutes an unreasonable restriction which could perfectly well be removed. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.

Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 would remove local flexibility in relation to how powers are designated to support staff. They would also allow support staff to exercise the powers that have been given to them outside the course of their hours of duty. That could be a problem.
	The clause is designed to give maximum local flexibility to chief officers to enable them to deliver the most effective policing. The restrictions are also meant to underline the difference between a community support officer, who works in support of the police, and a sworn constable who is always expected to exercise his or her powers anywhere. I was brought up to believe that a policeman is never off duty. He or she may have "clocked off", but they are still a police officer. The ability to place restrictions on a designation is a key part of the flexibility given to chief constables. For example, locally based community support officers may only operate over a limited geographical area—that may be done for a purpose and may involve, for example, a single estate—enabling them better to gain the support and respect of the local community and to build up intelligence networks. By restricting the powers of CSOs to that area, the chief officer would, in effect, be ring-fencing low-level policing in that area, making it clear to the community that the CSO would not be automatically removed to respond to pressures elsewhere in their force area.
	The ability to confine even CSOs to a community will provide those communities with reassurance. That is part of the contract between the police and the community. That would be entirely up to the chief officer. It might be useful to a community that had much trouble if an arrangement was made with the local police that CSOs would be designated to it. That is rather like saying to the chief officer, "CSOs will be in this area and they will not be taken away when there are other demands in the force. I shall designate them for your area to crack the problems on that estate". If the community knew that people could not cause diversionary efforts elsewhere, that might be an extra factor in reducing a community's fear of crime.
	For an investigating officer who is newly trained but inexperienced in the exercise of his powers outside a training room, the designation may require that he works under the supervision of a more experienced officer for a period to build up his experience in "live" situations. That may be for only a very short period, after which the condition could be removed from the designation. The necessary flexibility for chief officers in that respect is important.
	The amendment would in theory enable an off-duty escort officer to escort a prisoner to or between police stations or an off-duty investigating officer to exercise the powers of entry and search after arrest. Moreover, we do not want CSOs to be able to operate their powers except in the course of their employment when they are under the direction and control of a chief officer, fully accountable and clearly identifiable. Those are some of the necessary consequences of having such extra "civilianisation" for the police. Those people will make that system work and should not be regarded as second-class police constables.

Lord Elton: The noble Lord has rather lost me. We are, I believe, discussing subsection (6)(a). My noble friend said that he was concerned that such people would be empowered to act when they were not on duty, which involves a restriction on time. The Minister said that the virtue of the provision was that it meant that such people would not be empowered to act when they were in a different place and he discussed the matter in relation to a particular estate. Which effect will the provision have?

Lord Rooker: I hope that my explanation was clear. I think it was. I fully accept the noble Lord's point. My notes on Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 include a section entitled, "Purpose and effect"—former Ministers will be aware of that. I sometimes use the section as a speaking note, although I was told off about that this morning. The first few words of that section state:
	"Purpose of the amendments is not entirely clear".
	Forecasting what is in noble Lords' minds is always part of the problem. The examples that I gave show that we want maximum flexibility but that we want the chief officer to be able to designate where necessary—to ring-fence, either in hours or in relation to a locality, such as an estate—and to use the CSOs in the best way possible. In my example, the investigating officer might well be designated for a period of time and all the functions could not be carried out unless they were under the direct supervision of someone else. Keeping such flexibility goes to the heart of the amendments. I have probably gone somewhat wider and responded to an amendment that was not tabled. That is because we were not clear what was in the noble Lord's mind.

Lord Condon: The amendment would remove a time limitation—it would be a sensible time limitation. It seeks to make a clear distinction between the roles of police officers, specials and people designated under the new provisions. Police officers and, to some extent, special constabulary officers have a moral duty to intervene when off duty and on occasion a legal duty to intervene when off duty. That makes it clear that designated people would have no powers and no requirement to act. A sensible delineation is involved. We should make it clear from the start that such people are different, have limited training powers and responsibilities and are not expected or allowed to use those powers when off duty.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the Minister for their responses. I am afraid that we are turning the devaluation screw on those people, and I am sad about that.
	I did not speak to Amendment No. 199. It involves another aspect of what I refer to as the confusion caused by drawing functions from baskets. The amendment would reduce that effect. I do not intend to say any more about it. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation although I am not wholly satisfied by it. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 198:
	Page 32, line 25, leave out "his employment by a police authority" and insert "that employment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 199 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 200:
	Page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (7).

Lord Bradshaw: The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We are concerned about the exercise of reasonable force. That might provoke as much as contain attacks on CSOs. I seek from the Minister the assurance that it is for the chief police officer in consultation with his police authority to decide whether the clause should be invoked. Are all CSOs going to have to have the power to use reasonable force, other than in cases involving self-defence, or can the power be invoked if they wish to invoke it? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I can understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. We need to be clear about why we are extending the power to use reasonable force to civilians employed by the police authority and we need to be satisfied that we have sufficient safeguards in place.
	I suppose that there will always be fears about the use of reasonable force by designated persons but I do not think that they are justified. In some ways, the amendment strikes at the heart of the whole of Clause 33. If we are serious about designating police employees who are not police constables to carry out their roles—of community support, investigating and detention and of being escort officers—it is important that we give them the necessary powers to perform their full role.
	All of those types of police civilian have a need to use reasonable force in certain circumstances: to detain someone while awaiting the arrival of a constable, to prevent escapes or to search premises. To expect those civilian officers to carry out the important functions set out for them in the Bill without the sanction of using reasonable force would significantly undermine their credibility and effectiveness. It would also mean that they would need to be shadowed by a police officer who would be able to use reasonable force if necessary so that the civilian could carry out his duties. That would somewhat undermine the whole purpose of the clause, which will enable civilians to carry out discrete areas of policing business so that police officers are freed up to get back on the beat. That is the purpose of the exercise.
	As I said in debates on other amendments, there will be significant safeguards in place to ensure that designated persons use any powers granted to them appropriately. To begin with, they must be police authority employees. They will be under the direction and control of a chief officer and will be accountable to him. As I said, the chief officer is under a duty to ensure that such people are suitable to carry out the functions, that they are capable of doing so and that they are adequately trained. The chief officer can modify or withdraw the designation at any time, if necessary. They will also be subject to the independent police complaints commission, whose role will form part of their training. In addition, they will have regard to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice, which will also form a necessary part of their training. Their powers are extremely limited but, without the possibility of using reasonable force, those limited powers would be made a mockery of.
	I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord. This is an extremely sensitive area. However, I do not believe that it is a question of our enabling the police to employ people who will misuse force. As I said, those people will be subject to the new complaints commission; they will be adequately trained; and they will be familiar with the powers that they have and will know how not to go beyond them.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, surely there is a problem here. In our previous debate we agreed that the power to detain depends upon the terms of an individual officer's designation. Nevertheless, it is surely beyond argument that a police officer who is empowered to detain is empowered to use reasonable force. What is the position of a community support officer who has not, by the terms of his designation, been authorised to detain someone but who none the less, let us suppose, reads this clause or is instructed in it and recognises that a police constable is entitled to use reasonable force to detain? Where does he stand in those circumstances? Although his designation denies him the power to detain, the clause seems to confer it upon him. That is a muddle. I may be muddled myself but it is a muddle which the drafting gives rise to, and I believe that I am correct in that analysis. If that is the case, surely it cannot be right.

Lord Rooker: As ever, I am happy to have the drafting checked following what Members of the Committee have said. However, I have before me a comparison of community support officers and what I call the "extended police family"—the accredited people. A community support officer will have the power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a constable, or to accompany a person to a police station with that person's agreement. He will have the power to use reasonable force to detain a person or to prevent him from making off.
	That power will have to be used very carefully in conformity with what I have already said; that is, the officer will be subject to not "over-doing it", according to the requirements of the police complaints commission and those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. However, if the noble and learned Lord has detected what he considers to be a drafting error in subsection (7), I shall certainly have it looked at.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wonder whether the Minister will look at this matter again. As I understand it, he said just now, in terms, that a community support officer will have the power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes until the police arrive. My reading of Schedule 4 is that he has no such power. Surely one cannot have a power to detain without having a power to arrest. The Minister has made clear that there is no intention of there being a power to arrest. But Schedule 4 does not say that he has a power to detain until a police officer arrives; it says that he can request a person to stay and, if he chooses not to do so, that choice is in itself an offence. With great respect, that is totally different from a power to detain.
	I know that Part 2 of Schedule 4 is headed "Power to detain" but, unless I have completely misunderstood the purpose of the schedule, if the community officer sees someone whom he believes to have committed an offence, he has the right to ask for that person's name and address. If the person refuses, the community officer has the right to ask him to remain for up to 30 minutes until a police officer arrives or he may accompany him to the police station. The person in question is free to refuse to do either of those things but, in doing so, he will commit the offence of failing to comply with the request of the community support officer. With great respect, I believe that that is totally different from a power to detain, which must, of necessity, surely imply a power to arrest. One cannot detain a person unless one has already legally arrested him.

Lord Rooker: Until he reached his last few sentences, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, explained the matter correctly. But I believe that he is wrong in saying that the power to detain and the power to arrest are separate. I imagine that there will be arguments about this in future, although I hope that there will not necessarily be so. When does the 30-minute period start, for example? It will probably be at the point when a person decides not to co-operate with the community support officer, who will have asked the person either to supply a name and address or to wait until a police officer arrives.
	Obviously the community support officer will be in touch with the police station by radio; it will not be done by semaphore. Therefore, if a person decides not to comply and looks as though he will make off, then, subject to the circumstances, the community support officer will have the power to use reasonable force to stop him making off and to make him await the constable, who will have the power to arrest. The power to arrest does not lie with the community support officer.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I come from a police authority which has never, for example, fired a firearm in anger; and it is a big police authority. I believe that some authorities may not want their community support officers to have such a power. I ask the Minister to consider making this not a mandatory power but a power with which the police authorities can accredit their officers if they wish.

Lord Elton: In furtherance of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, subsection (7) gives the power to use force where it would be used by a police constable. But surely the police constable could not use it unless he had first arrested the person who was about to make off. I do not believe that that point has been answered.

Lord Rooker: According to my reading of the situation, I believe that that is wrong. The police constable will probably have the power to detain prior to making an arrest. I am sure that it is that way round. I shall take advice from my learned friends during the break, but I am fairly certain that I am right on that point.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a suggestion which is generally intended to help. Is not the way out of this matter to confer always upon community support officers the power to detain? That is, in any case, what the public would expect. We have already established that they may not always have it because the designation may not specify that it shall apply. If everyone has it then we do not have the confusion to which I have drawn attention of a person not having a power to detain but, none the less, having the power to use reasonable force to stop a man running away. That is nonsense.

Lord Rooker: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has been extremely helpful, and I shall certainly consider that suggestion.

Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 201:
	Page 32, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Chapter—
	"Director General" means—
	(a) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; or
	(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; and
	"Service Authority" means—
	(a) in relation to employment with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and
	(b) in relation to employment with the National Crime Squad and to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad.".
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage resume not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order  2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may also be convenient if I speak to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002. I shall move both orders separately, and if noble Lords wish to speak just to one or the other, that is their entitlement.
	As the House will be aware, the draft uprating order and the draft guaranteed minimum pensions order are an important part of DWP business. The uprating order will increase most benefits from April in the normal way in line with the RPI for national insurance benefits and the Rossi index for income-related benefits. For the 12 months ending in September, both of those price indicators were 1.7 per cent. The other order will increase guaranteed minimum pensions by 1.7 per cent in line with the RPI. However, as in every year since 1998, there are some benefits that we want to increase by more than inflation.
	I deal first with carers and the disabled. We know that it is particularly hard for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities. Indeed, children with disabilities or children in families with a disabled person are some of the poorest children in the country. Again, we want to provide substantial extra help for disabled children. We are raising the disabled child premium to £35.50 per week, giving an additional £5 on top of normal uprating, which will benefit around 80,000 children in the neediest families.
	We also want to help remove the barriers to work for people with severe disabilities and make sure that work pays. Two years ago we substantially increased maximum payments and earnings disregards in the Independent Living Fund. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Wilkins is not here. She was one of those who pressed that most urgently, and rightly so. We are abolishing the ILF earnings limits altogether, both for those severely disabled people and their partners. That will be worth an average £130 per week to those families. That means that there is now no disincentive to work for disabled people who are currently being supported in independent living by the Independent Living Fund. We shall also extend help to people with savings of up to £18,500 by increasing capital limits in relation to the fund. Since 1996-97, ILF provision has gone up from £109.6 million to the £150.5 million provided in 2001-02.
	We have already announced a package of help for carers worth £500 million over three years. Carers will also benefit from the increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit, which increases in line with the lower earnings limit. From next April, carers will be able to earn £75 per week after allowable expenses without their invalid care allowance being affected. Again, that is an encouragement to keep them in touch with the labour market. We know that the average period of caring is between two and three years.
	We are doing more than ever to help families to balance their work and home lives. We are raising the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay from £62.20 to £75 per week. That will benefit around 340,000 families per year and is the largest weekly increase in the benefit since February 1958. I do not know what happened in January 1958 but I shall seek to find out. Additionally, the Sure Start maternity grant will rise from £300 to £500, giving a further substantial increase to mothers on low income when they most need it.
	When we discussed that on an earlier occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed me on what happened to those who failed to qualify. We were worried that they might slip through the net. I was able to reassure him. After a quick "tracker" exercise, we found that in the case of almost everyone who was refused the first time round, it was because, for example, they had applied too early, and they subsequently received the benefit. The increase to £500 at the point at which a pregnancy is confirmed is a key initiative in ensuring that children have the best chance of coming into a secure life.
	Again, we want to do more for pensioners and give significant help to the elderly. That is an issue which has occupied your Lordships' House over the past few weeks. Measures in the order show our continuing commitment to tackle pensioner poverty and to ensure that our pensioners directly benefit from the growing prosperity of the country.
	We shall, as promised, increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings to £98.15 for a single person and to just under £150, £149.80, for a couple. As a direct result of MIG, a single person will be at least £15 per week better off and a pensioner couple £23 per week better off than they were in 1997. In conjunction with winter fuel payments and free TV licences, we see that a single pensioner is at least £18 per week better off and a pensioner couple will have gained more than £27 per week.
	The pension credit, which we recently debated, will boost significantly the incomes of low income and modest income pensioners by directly rewarding their savings. As I have said on many occasions, a pensioner, possibly a widow, with a modest occupational pension of £100 per month at present sees no benefit from that because MIG is of sufficient decency to float them above it. In future under pension credit, a pensioner with an occupational pension of £100 per month will keep £60 of it and be £60 per month better off.
	Between now and the introduction of the credit we shall continue to ensure that those on low and modest incomes can also share in our growing prosperity. The transitional arrangements introduced in last year's order and continued in the order that we shall debate tonight allow for that. We shall, as promised, increase the basic state pension by £3 to £75.50 per week for single pensioners and by £4.80 to £120.70 for couples. Widows' benefits and bereavement benefits will rise in line with the amount for single pensioners.
	The state second pension being introduced this April will, as it builds up, give more help to those on lower earnings or with broken work records such as carers and disabled people and, above all, women with interrupted earnings, while those on moderate and higher incomes will be encouraged to save through occupational and other funded pensions. Stakeholder pensions will fill a gap for low cost and more portable pensions.
	I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is in her place. As I announced in the debate following Third Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill, we have reviewed the rules governing the reduction in benefit when one of our clients goes into hospital. Alongside the introduction of the credit in April 2003, we shall ease the current rules so that relevant income maintenance benefits are no longer downrated—whether for pensioners or other clients on benefits—after recipients have been in hospital for six weeks. We have effectively doubled the six-week rule so that benefit will remain in payment in full for 13 weeks. As most hospital stays, including those of pensioners, are shorter than 13 weeks, I am happy to say that most people will not see a reduction in their weekly income. An estimated 26,000 of the 35,000 people who currently have their benefit reduced—that 26,000 includes 20,000 pensioners—will benefit at a cost of around £40 million per year. I well recall the warm welcome that was given to those proposals in the House.
	To conclude, we are continuing to target more money on families and people with disabilities as well as continuing our action to tackle pensioner poverty and end child poverty. We are able to do that because of our success in building a strong economy and reducing the costs of failure; that is the payment spent on unemployment benefit when people would rather be in work. We have seen the results. The latest figures show more people in work than ever before, with employment up by over 1.3 million since 1997. Unemployment remains at levels not seen since the 1970s. For example, when we came to office around 250,000 youngsters were unemployed. That is now down to around 32,000.
	As I said, the latest figures show more people in work than ever before. Our fundamental overhaul is transforming the welfare system from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system which fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent by helping those of working age into work.
	A combination of the national minimum wage, which again largely benefits women, of tax credits, which largely benefit women, and changes to national insurance, including raising the point at which one pays national insurance while protecting one's benefit entitlement on the LEL, which again largely benefits women, as well as changes to the tax system, all ensure that work pays. The new deals make work possible and have so far helped well over 600,000 people into jobs. We are taking a single approach to work and benefits delivered through Jobcentre Plus. It will no longer be, "Here is the benefit office, à la 'The Full Monty', and there is the employment office". There will be an integrated service. We know that sometimes people move in and out of work. We want an integrated service so that we can offer help to everyone of working age for the first time. The measures we are taking all help to shift that culture.
	We believe that this uprating order further delivers on our promises. Many points raised by your Lordships were aired at the time that the uprating statement was made. However, I shall do my best to follow up any of your Lordships' concerns during tonight's debate. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company pension fund.
	Moving these Motions in another place, the Secretary of State began by saying:
	"this year I am able to increase some benefits by more than the rate of inflation. We are able to do that because of our success in helping people into work".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/2002; col. 500.]
	That was an unexpected remark by the Secretary of State. The implication would appear to be that if unemployment goes down, pension increases go up—not an argument normally deployed. It is true that both affect the National Insurance Fund but if that argument is made, what would happen if unemployment were to rise? Would pensions then go down? That seems an odd correlation to draw.
	One problem has been the substantial fluctuation in the uprating of pensions. One year we saw the notorious 75p increase. The following year, ahead of a general election, there was suddenly a £5 increase. This year the increase is to be £3. If we understand the last Budget correctly, in future the increase will be no less than 2.5 per cent—but this year the figure is only 1.7 per cent.
	We join in welcoming the various changes that the noble Baroness has announced, such as the ILF earnings limit, maternity benefits, support for children age two and three who are disabled, and earnings relief for the severely disabled. They are greater, as the noble Baroness rightly stressed, than the RPI increase. Benefits generally under the RPI and the Rossi index are 1.7 per cent. We need to put that in the context of the position generally with regard to pensions.
	First, I want to comment on hospital downrating. On Third Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill on 25th February, there was widespread welcome in all parts of the House for the Government's proposal to extend from six weeks to 13 weeks the period before an individual's benefits are downrated. On that occasion the noble Baroness did not mention—neither did the Secretary of State in the other place—that change would not be happening until autumn 2003. Between now and then, people who are in hospital for more than six weeks will have their benefits downrated. It was a little ingenuous of the noble Baroness not to mention that point. Our welcome would clearly be more enthusiastic if that improvement were to take effect immediately.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a little ungallant of the noble Lord. That whole debate took place in the context of the State Pension Credit Bill and the timing of that associated with hospital downrating. It never occurred to me that an announcement about what we were going to do on the State Pension Credit Bill and hospital downrating in that context in February would be assumed to be coming into effect six weeks later.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, when the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will explain why it is necessary to delay the change until autumn 2003. It would be better if the change could be made before then. If there are good reasons for not doing so, we will consider them. In any event, people in hospital during the intervening period will not enjoy the benefit of the change until autumn 2003.
	Other points raised during the downrating debate related to whether the figures were updated to allow for changes in circumstances. It is common ground in all parts of the House that household expenditure now is very different from when the system was originally introduced. The noble Baroness suggested that I should raise that matter in this debate.
	I looked for some clue in the orders. All I could find was the note from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which refers to Article 19 and Schedules 6 and 7, which set out the amount by which housing benefit entitlement is reduced for a period in hospital. I understand that those reductions will be increased between now and when the underlying change comes into effect, and then increased thereafter for people who are in hospital for more than 13 weeks. Why are those increases to take place?
	We asked 10 days ago how up to date are the deductions now being made and which will continue to be made. I suggested that there ought to be regular updating, to take into account—as is done with the RPI—changes in household expenditure. When was the pattern of expenditure that is taken into account for the downrating rules last reviewed, revised and brought up to date? Perhaps the Minister could explain also why there does not appear to be any downrating change except in relation to council tax and housing benefit.
	As to setting the upratings in the broader context of pensions provision, the Government hope that over time, the proportion of pensions met by funded schemes will increase to 60 per cent, with only 40 per cent from the state. The changes since 1997 give cause for concern. We—I refer to the usual suspects, who are in their places—spent many hours considering the stakeholder pensions Bill. That legislation, I say with regret, has proved disappointing inasmuch as many stakeholder pensions seem to be replacements for existing arrangements and many of the people entering into them are not those originally targeted.
	Doubts are increasingly being expressed in the press about the state second pension, which we also spent several hours debating on a separate, large chunk of legislation. A leader in the Financial Times on 4th March commented:
	"The current plan for a combination of the two state pensions"
	—that is, the basic state pension and the second state pension—
	"is likely to provide only the rough equivalent of what the old basic state pension provided at its peak—a little above 20% of average earnings".
	That will not be a helpful level of benefit on which to rely. The article goes on, predictably, to draw attention to the fact that anyway, the amounts are likely to be overtaken by the increase in the minimum income guarantee.
	As we see more and more increases in means testing, can the Minister tell us what percentage of pensioners are now subject to means test and what forecasts have been made for 2010 and 2020? There are mounting concerns about the matter. Reports have been produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggesting that someone retiring in 2050 will need a pension pot of some £100,000 just to buy an annuity equal to the minimum income guarantee; in short, a pensioner will get nothing for the fact that he has accumulated that pot. The institute also found that MIG is unambiguously discouraging savings. Again, against the background of these orders, the declining savings ratio that more than halved between the third quarter of 1997 to the third quarter of 2001 is worrying. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what is the savings ratio at present.
	The other general points in this context relate to the fact that we are really concerned with inter-generational transfers. That is a crucial point. The more one looks at the way in which things are developing, the more one begins to wonder whether the pay-as-you-go system, with all the changes that appear fairly predictable now, will be met in reality when, in political terms, claims are made. That is particularly so if the present generation does not make adequate provision for its own retirement in due course. We do not have any figure for the present value of future pension payments. I tried to get this established when we discussed the government accountancy legislation some two years ago.
	I believe it is right to say that, at long last, it appears that the Government will shortly be responding to the Sharman report on these matters. As regards the state system, can the Minister say whether that report will give us an idea of what the overall situation is likely to be with regard to those future pension liabilities? Clearly it is a massive figure. Can the noble Baroness give us the figure on the government balance sheet that will show the present value of future pension liabilities? At present the Government do not produce such a figure—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can help me a little. I do not actually understand his question. Is he referring to the liability to state public revenues to be financed by taxpayers, is he referring to the savings ratio to be held by individual people through money purchase schemes or is he talking about the cumulative sum—the £600 billion or the £900 billion—that are currently in private funds? Alternatively, is he talking about the percentage of GDP compared to Italy, Denmark or Belgium? I should be happy to give him those figures.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the short answer to that multiple choice of questions is that I was referring to none of those figures. In the national accounts and on the national balance sheet that we now have, I was suggesting that we ought to have a figure for the present value of the Government's future pension liabilities.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean FRS17?

Lord Higgins: No, my Lords; it is nothing to do with FRS17. I shall repeat what I said. I have in mind the discounted value of future pension liabilities. Clearly that is a liability on the Government's balance sheet but at present we have no information in that respect.
	I have spoken for much longer than I intended, but perhaps I may say a few words about occupational pensions. This matter has suddenly become headline news. Attention has been drawn to the problems faced by occupational pension schemes, which the Government say that they are anxious to foster, as far as concerns the decline in the stock market and longer life expectancy. In addition, there was the Chancellor's action on advance corporation tax back in 1997-98.
	As the Minister will know, concerns have also been expressed on the subject of FRS17. Perhaps I may spend a few moments on the issue. I understand that the Secretary of State held consultations a few days ago on the subject. If we are to achieve the Government's objective of a high percentage of funded pensions, it is important for us to encourage occupational schemes as far as we can. The move from final salary schemes to defined contribution schemes is of concern. The argument is that the FRS17 proposal merely anticipates the European standard that will be introduced. I find that surprising. We well know that the amount in UK pension funds is more than the pension funds in the whole of the rest of the European Union. So the idea that they would have a tougher standard than ours seems rather surprising.
	In that context, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether she thinks that the European standard, which is supposed to be developed in the next few years, will actually be tougher than the proposals in FRS17. It is very worrying that so many company schemes have tended to change from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme, most notably yesterday with Marks and Spencer, which has an enormous reputation for being good as regards pension provision. If no comments are made in this respect, I am worried that there will be something of a fashionable, or panic, reaction to change in a way that will seriously affect the pensions of everyone in the country for many years to come. It will place an increasing burden on the items that are dealt with in this uprating order and on the requirement of the state to make provision instead, when it would be much better dealt with on a funded basis.
	I have no particular points to make on the second order. However, its Explanatory Memorandum states:
	"This Order does not impose any new costs on business".
	I am not entirely clear as to why that is so. If there is to be an increase of £1.7 per cent on the minimum pension requirement, I do not understand how there can be no extra cost to business. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
	The issues before us are fashionable and extremely important. If we are to appraise them correctly, the orders under discussion need to be put in that broader context.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for making available to us the Explanatory Memorandum provided for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. While I am on the subject, I should also like to thank the Minister for the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the affirmative instrument under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which is a welcome innovation. It is the sort of document that comes out of a well-run department.
	On hospital downrating, I wish to join my noble friend Lady Barker in the welcome that she warmly extended to it on the previous occasion. I take the Minister's point about the commencement date of the Act. However, our amendment contained no proposal to change that date. I do not know whether the Minister was aware at that time of the outturn of the National Insurance Fund for the year just completed, but I certainly was not aware of it. That outturn shows an excess over the Government Actuary's forecast of 2.5 billion in one year, which is a fair amount of money. It is a situation in which the Government could afford, if they chose ex gratia, to have anticipated the date contained in the legislation. I share the regret of my honourable friend Mr Webb that they did not choose to do so. However, that does not in any way diminish my gratitude for what they have done about the downrating from 2003.
	On FRS17, I must declare an interest as one who is due to retire within the year on a final salary scheme. For that reason I shall say only that I very much share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about what exactly is going on and why. If the Minister is able to enlighten us further on that subject, I shall be grateful.
	One omission from this uprating statement—I know that it is not normally uprated but it might be a good idea if it were included in mandatory uprating—is the Government's winter fuel payments. It is not my business to teach the Government how to win votes, but I can tell them in retrospect that in the Romsey by-election the winter fuel payment, rather than an increase in the basic pension, would have shifted far fewer votes out of the Government's column if it had been covered by mandatory uprating, as is the basic pension. It is a point that I had made to me on the doorstep on a large number of occasions. It is one that the Government might have found worth listening to.
	I must on the other hand welcome the increase in the statutory maternity payments above inflation and the increase in the earnings limits of the ILA. I am sorry though that nothing is done to narrow the gap between the levels of income support for the over and the under 25s. Of course a long succession of percentage changes has the effect of making the numerical gap even wider than it was before. That is a matter which I must confess I regret.
	By general convention, this debate is treated as an opportunity for a general discussion of the state of the field of social security. I have decided that I shall not do it that way this time. The Minister knows my general views about the Government's basic principles and approach to social security. I know her views on those views. In fact, I reckon that we could both repeat that debate in our sleep. So I shall not do it, except to refer to a small amount of new material that has become available since last we discussed the matter.
	One is always tempted, in going over orders such as this, to pick out some often unexpected fact and demand an explanation of it—for example, the cases where the invalid care allowance is arranged by the Secretary of State to be paid on a Wednesday. I shall not do that because, as the Minister illustrated just now, she is perfectly capable of dealing with any such queries. In the memorable words of Dame Helen Gardiner in the Lady Chatterley trial:
	"You wouldn't want me to explain that. I could".
	So I have decided not to go down that road either.
	However, I want to raise the question of the National Audit Office report on the New Deal for Young People. I was a little disconcerned to hear the Minister repeat, yet again, that over 200,000 people had found work because of the New Deal. The National Audit Office, in paragraph 8 of the report, states:
	"But the economic impact of the programme cannot be measured simply in terms of the number of young people placed into jobs. For example, many of them would have found a job anyway because of natural labour market turnover and the general expansion of the economy".
	Its estimate is that in the first two years of the programme's operation, the deal reduced youth unemployment by 35,000 and increased youth employment by 15,000.
	Any increase is welcome. But these are figures of a very different order from the ones which the Government have been quoting and from the one the Minister quoted tonight. I should be glad to know whether the discrepancy is because the Government have not yet taken the report on board or because they disagree with the report. If they disagree with the report, for precisely what reason do they?
	The report also draws attention—as my party has done for quite a long time—to the number of people leaving the New Deal to no known destination. It says that it is about a further 30 per cent of leavers from the programme.
	The Minister will undoubtedly reply with the information which the report has at paragraph 2.13. It states:
	"Research commissioned by the Employment Service suggests that 56 per cent of these people had in fact entered employment, including sustained employment".
	That is a very guardedly worded paragraph, is it not? "Research suggests that" is a formula which, when I employ it, indicates a very low degree of certainty about the point I am discussing. The reference to "employment, including sustained employment" would be satisfied if only 1 per cent of it were sustained. Indeed, it would if only 0.1 per cent of it were sustained.
	I should like to know more about the research which is there referred to. I appreciate that I have not given the Minister notice of this point and she will not have it at her fingertips tonight; although one never knows with the Minister, she always might. But if on some occasion or other I were able to see some of this research and see what it contains I should be extremely interested.
	That raises the more general question of whether the Government have placed comparatively too much emphasis on the New Deal and too little on the job of sustaining benefit levels. The campaign for food poverty is coming up with fairly considerable bodies of evidence of people who are actually short of food. Malnutrition among those admitted to hospital has been a matter of general concern since the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was Minister. It remains so.
	One should also take account of the fact that in purchase of food many people on benefit are paying prices which are greater than the indices would indicate; especially those who are not able to walk to the nearest supermarket and do not possess a car. The cost of food to those who do not possess a car is, in real terms, a good deal higher than the cost of food to those who do. If one lives either in remote rural Wales or on the 21st floor of a council flat where the lifts have been out of action for six weeks—that is an actual example from the ward next door to my own—then one's shopping is very much restricted to what is in the immediate neighbourhood.
	Deterioration of health as a result of malnutrition does not increase employablity. We do not have any research on minimum income levels necessary to sustain good health. My party has called for such research on many occasions. I should like to take this as one more occasion on which to do so.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, first, I express my thanks to the Minister for her announcement in response to my amendment to the State Pension Credit Bill about the hospital downrating rule. I am sorry that I was not able to be in the House last week to hear the announcement.
	Obviously, it was high time that that rule was reviewed. It had been in existence for 54 years without any real change. Thirteen weeks is a much better cut off point than six weeks. Obviously, my former colleagues at Age Concern will be looking carefully at the operation of the rule on those still affected and would have much preferred a cut off at 26 weeks or six months rather than 13 weeks. But I am pleased that only 9,000 people will now be affected. I share many of the other concerns eloquently expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
	I want only to mention a couple of points. As to when the change is introduced in autumn of 2003, while understanding absolutely the reasons for that, as explained by the Minister, we have to remember that if one is very old, then time is of the essence. That is quite a long time to wait. The Government have said on many occasions that they are firmly committed to the state pension forming the foundation of pensioner incomes. I am pleased that it will be increased above inflation this year. But people now need and demand a lot of information that they have not yet received. It would be most helpful if, through research, we had a real estimate of pensioners' budget needs. We have never really had that; we have had to depend on the voluntary sector to make the sort of estimates that the family expenditure survey—the shopping basket assessment of need—does not achieve for older people, whose priorities are quite different from those of families with young children. I wish that we had a pensioners' budget assessment every year, which would give us a good indication of what is needed.
	Turning to other issues, I very much welcome the improvements to maternity benefit and the incomes of people trying hard to balance family life and work. Those employers that are family friendly need encouragement. That is an important step in our changing society. Our ageing demography does not mean that those with families and young people are unaffected. I very much welcome efforts to tackle child poverty and discrimination against people with disabilities, especially disabled children, and to help those families included in the Sure Start initiative, to which I am personally committed.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer your Lordships' questions. If there are questions that I am unable to answer because of a lack of precise information or that I simply overlook, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me and I shall certainly do my best to respond in writing.
	I turn first to the comments, questions, propositions, assertions or, on a good day, statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He began by asking whether, because we were stating that as unemployment was down, pensions were going up, the reverse was also the case. In other words, were the two tied? He knows perfectly well that that is not the case. State pensions are paid from general taxation, although attributed to the National Insurance Fund, on a pay-as-you-go system, as are unemployment payments.
	The substantive point being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—certainly the point that I would wish to make—is that it is precisely the prudent management of the economy—I know that the noble Lord will wince at those words—and the resulting reduction in unemployment that allows us to ensure that pensioner incomes, including state provision of pensions incomes, have since 1997 not merely increased by inflation but have kept pace with the overall incomes and earnings in this country, which of course have increased in excess of the retail prices index. Whether the noble Lord chooses to track that in the statistics for households with below average incomes, or whatever, I am sure that he will accept my assertion. That is the point: there is head space, given growth, for the Government to be more generous in a redistributive sense than might otherwise have been the case.
	I turn to the noble Lord's second point about hospital downrating. I was delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, present to welcome the orders. I apologise if any noble Lord misunderstood anything about the timing. The reason for the timing is that it is associated with the introduction of pension credit and the information technology systems being developed for that. Therefore, the change from the six-week to the 13-week rule will be part of that package. Noble Lords will recall that we started by talking about the savings element of pension credit being protected from hospital downrating. That was in the original IT package. That was extended according to the timetable; that is why it is associated with the October introduction.
	The noble Lord asked me whether the elements within that were reviewed in uprating terms. The process is not like a family budget assessment. We do not work out individual lines. Pensioners, or anyone else in hospital, will have very different patterns of expenditure according to their housing situation, whether they run a car, what are their month-by-month overheads, and the like.
	We have never tied hospital downrating to explicit expenditure. As the noble Lord will know, as a general principle we have said that we do not believe that the state should be paying twice for the same contingency. We therefore currently introduce a modest reduction after six weeks, but in future it will be after 13 weeks, and a much fuller reduction after 52 weeks. As far as I am aware, the percentage reduction has remained fairly constant over the years, including under the previous administration. But I will check to see whether it has changed considerably. It is a percentage reduction, which therefore varies according to the total level of retirement pension. If retirement pension changes, so must the amount being deducted from it.
	That has never been attached to individual assessments of income. There may at some point be a statement to be made; there may be a change in policy on capital limits, or whatever. But that has never been done in the way that the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, why is it necessary to link the rule on downrating to the pension credit Bill? Why cannot that be done in some other way? Of course, that Bill is now going to another place, so it can be amended if need be. On the Minister's point about uprating, surely the amount deducted to avoid double counting ought to bear some relationship to the amount of money that the person is alleged to have saved as a result of going into hospital. Some estimate must be made of that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, there was an initial calculation that has been sustained. I am puzzled by that point because most government upratings, whether of capital limits or whatever, are not calculated on a family budget unit assessment; they never have been. They are a determination by a government as to what they believe to be appropriate, given the information that they have and extrapolation from past patterns. This instance is no different. As far as I am aware, the percentage reduction has remained broadly in line for many years. A future government may consider that a different percentage should be deducted, but this is not an item that is attached to a bundle of goods. As far as I am aware, it never has been.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises what a big gate she has opened by saying that the doctrine of double provision is not attached to actual cost. Has she made it as abstract as the Trinitarian doctrine of the double procession, which finally divided the Greek and Latin churches?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, I must say that that comparison had not occurred to me. My point is that the doctrine of double provision means that if, for example, someone has been caring for an invalid son, is married and in receipt of invalid care allowance and then becomes a widow, she does not receive double provision—both the widow's benefit and the ICA—even though her pattern of expenditure, given her son's disability, may be very different indeed, on a bundle of goods assessment, from that of someone else in a similar position. No one in receipt of carer's allowance is assessed for how much carer's allowance they should receive according to housing costs, heating costs and so on. They receive a determinate sum.
	The noble Earl may call it arbitrary, but that has been the policy of all governments. They determine the amount that they think appropriate and that is what they pay. Occasionally, it may be revisited—in terms of capital limits, every five years or so. Basic income levels may be linked to RPI but that is the determination. That is no different in this case from any other area of government policy. I am surprised that the noble Earl is pressing me on that. The RPI goes up, the proportion taken for hospital downrating remains the same, therefore the relationship between the two figures continues. I am puzzled that the noble Earl should think that it should be based on anything else. If it were to be based on individual cost assessment, every pensioner would have to be individually means-tested to assess what were their expenditure patterns. I cannot believe that the noble Earl wants to go that way, especially given his remarks on means testing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins then spoke about stakeholder pensions. He regards them as having failed to make an impact. About 700,000 have now been sold and about 85 per cent of all employers—the key test is whether it is meeting the employment gap rather than, as the noble Lord rightly said, being recycled to help others, although that is not necessarily a bad thing—are now complying by making available stakeholder pensions. It will take time to build. Some stakeholder pensions are being bought for non-working people, including children and non-working spouses, but that is not a bad thing either, given the resources that people will need to build up a secure retirement.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the relationship of hospital downrating payment to pension credit. I would like to follow that up.
	The Minister talked about the introduction of computer systems and the fact that it would take 18 months to change the computer system for pension credit. I am sure that that is right, but there must be existing computer systems for calculation of hospital downrating. Why can they not take on board a simple change?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I repeat: the Government will not introduce the downrating ahead of the proposed time. The fact that the noble Baroness may wish to see it is not on the Government's agenda. It was not part of the original statement last November; it has come about as a result of representations and the development of the Government's thinking.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the Bill must still go through Parliament, and I would have thought that most people would recognise that, with such major changes, there is normally at least 12 months' play before the changes are introduced. It is no different, in that sense, from the usual advance notice of what we propose to do. That is a reasonable policy, and it is intrinsically connected with the developments in pension credit, particularly because the savings element of pension credit is protected. It seems sensible to brigade the changes that will result in that process. At the moment, the hospital downrating administration costs are something like £4 million to £5 million a year. That software will have to be rewritten and reworked. It is reasonable that it should be associated with the development of the pension service and the introduction of pension credit.
	I cannot recall in my time in government and opposition any significant change of that sort that did not have a run-in period of 12 months or so. I am surprised that your Lordships think that it will be introduced in the next three weeks or so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talked about stakeholders and the state second pension. He thought that that might also be redundant. I think that the Financial Times may have understood; I am not sure whether the noble Lord quoted it inaccurately or whether the paper itself had misunderstood the nature of the S2P. As the noble Lord will know, the state second pension allows carers on incomes below £10,000 a year, as well as disabled people, to get a pension that, for a carer, would be worth about £40, after 40 years' caring. What is more—this is the misunderstanding about the connection with MIG—with pension credit, for someone who has been contributing to such a pension as a low earner, it will be wrapped around in the pension credit formula, so that they will be a gainer. That is perhaps what the Financial Times has misunderstood.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on means testing, as he often does. I simply do not accept that vocabulary. With the pension credit people will receive a review every five years to map their income and give them a reliable means of financial support for the next five years, under which they can plan their lives. Incidentally, that mapping disregards all sorts of modest extraneous moneys such as voluntary and charitable contributions. That cannot be called means testing. It is far less a means testing system than any taxation system, and I do not think that it helps to encourage pensioners to think of it as an entitlement—the words that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, rightly used—to keep labelling it as means testing. If there are ways of further reducing intrusion, I am sure that the pension service will do so. A five-year assessment of income, based on a telephone service, in which we help somebody to fill in the forms so that they will have a reliable income seems far removed from the 1930s concept of means testing, which is too easily bandied around in the House.
	I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the future discounted liabilities of pension funds. I need to read his words carefully and make sure that I understand him. I have had four goes; perhaps I will get it right on the fifth.
	I share the noble Lord's concern about FRS17. We should not impose a standard that could be tougher than international standards. As the noble Lord recognised, the Secretary of State has discussed the matter with the independent Accounting Standards Board—not a government body—and has made the same points as the noble Lord made tonight. The standard in the UK is different from the international accounting standard, and that allows for more of a smoothing effect.
	Having said that, I think that it would be wrong to blame FRS17 for what has happened in the move from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. I was shocked to realise that the amount of money that had not gone into pension schemes because during the 1990s employers could, perfectly legally, take pension holidays is £11.5 billion. From the report on the funding of defined benefit schemes, it would seem that employers seemed willing to sign up to defined benefit schemes when they did not have to pay for them. As soon as they were expected to deliver on their pensions promise, they opted out of defined benefit schemes and hastened into defined contribution schemes, whereupon they halved, on average, the employer's contribution. That is the problem.
	I had some work done on the matter in case I had misunderstood the statistics, and it was clear that, if employers and employees on average salaries continued to contribute to defined contribution schemes in the same proportion as for defined benefit schemes, the outcome over a long enough period should be the same. For example, we estimated that, for someone with an income of £300 a week, 10 per cent contributions between employer and employee would produce a pension of £100 a week. If the contributions were 15 per cent, they would get a pension of £150 a week over a 35-year saving period.
	The difference in value between a DB and a DC scheme hinges almost entirely on the willingness of employers to maintain the same level of contribution. I fear that they will not, because that has been the basic reason why they have left the schemes, but if they did, the outcome over a period of time should be broadly similar. The defined contribution can have other advantages, including portability and transferability. The answer is to try to ensure that employers observe their pension promise, even though the format of the pension will have changed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we were not uprating winter fuel payments. Given that in 1997 they were £20, they would be about £27 now had we uprated them. In fact, they are £200. It is a little churlish to accuse us of not having uprated them when we have increased them from £20 to £200.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I took some care to work my remarks in order to avoid that particular reply. I asked the Minister why she had not included the principle of statutory uprating. I was well aware of that increase and of its generosity, as were the pensioners with whom I talked. However, they were also aware that the statutory principle which would continue it in future had not been laid down. That point remains.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the pensioners who made those remarks to the noble Earl were rather churlish. They have seen increases of £50 from a base of £150 in the past year or so. If their notion of uprating is to increase that sum by £50 each year, it is unreasonable. The Government have never laid it down that that or other sorts of payments should be RPI-ed. Had it been RPI-ed back in 1997, pensioners would have been so much the poorer.
	The final major point made tonight was about the new deals. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about the research behind the NAO report. NAO reports are published as agreed reports. A formal government response will be published following the PAC report later in the year. Looking at the report by the Industrial Society and some of the policy studies that have come out, as well as the NAO report, I think that it is worth emphasising that several hundred thousand youngsters have gone through the New Deal. Obviously and inevitably there will be dead weight. It is an ugly phrase, but there will be. Many young people would have got jobs anyway, but we do not know in advance who will get the jobs without our help and who needs our help, without which they will not get the job. If the noble Lord has a formula for that, that would be helpful: we could target it. The evidence shows the value of the New Deal even to those youngsters who might well have got jobs without the New Deal.
	Before I finish I shall give some statistics. Already the value to the social economy is in the region of £500 million for the £140 million that we have expended. It is clear that three-quarters of the youngsters have gone into sustained jobs. Those who have become unemployed have gone into proper jobs much more quickly than they would otherwise compared to those who have not gone through the New Deal. We also know that the net hourly wages when those youngsters have come off the New Deal has increased by an average of 20 per cent; and that whereas in 1997 200,000 young people had been unemployed for more than six months, the figure is now down to 39,000. A major component of that has been the New Deal.
	I have dealt with most of the questions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, queried the failure of benefit levels to be associated with the equivalent of family budget unit and real cost of living assessments. I mentioned on a previous occasion my delight that, for example, a lone parent with two children is already receiving a level of benefit which at least matches—and in some cases even exceeds—the estimated figures that the research bodies were putting forward as a minimum acceptable income.
	More to the point, the noble Earl knows, as I know, that those lone parents and their children will be lifted out of inter-generational poverty only by being encouraged into work. The New Deal for lone parents—200,000 lone parents have come through and the vast majority have gone into work—means that a lone parent with children on a minimum wage of £4.10 per hour, working 16 hours per week, will actually get paid a wage equivalent to about £12 per hour. A lone parent gets paid a man's wage by virtue of the combination of the New Deal, the minimum wage and the tax credits. That is what will lift her and her children out of poverty for the future. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may clarify the end of our previous debate on Clause 33(7). In order to avoid wasting time at Report stage it would be for everyone's convenience if I could briefly outline the position having now taken advice. There was confusion and I was partly responsible for it.
	Clause 33(7) has the effect that where an existing police power is conferred on a designated person which comes with a power to use reasonable force when it is exercised by a constable, the designated person will also receive a power to use reasonable force. For example, if the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to take fingerprints or to conduct a search is conferred on a designated person, that person will have a power to use reasonable force in that existing power.
	It will be up to the chief officer whether those powers are conferred. If they are, the civilian will have the power to use reasonable force, if necessary. That is only sensible as they would otherwise commit an assault on a detainee if consent to having fingerprints taken or being searched was not given or was withdrawn. However, Clause 33(7) does not confer an automatic right to use reasonable force in connection with the powers in Schedule 4, which are not existing police powers but which are readily crafted for civilians.
	This includes the power to detain while waiting for a police officer, which is available to community support officers under Schedule 4(2). The power to detain will be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. The power to use reasonable force to enforce that detention under Schedule 4(4) will also be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. I hope that that clarifies the situation.

Lord Marlesford: Is it in order to ask the Minister a question on that statement?

Noble Lords: No!

Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable by police civilians]:
	[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 204:
	Page 110, leave out lines 26 to 29.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his explanation of a matter that is not dealt with on the Marshalled List. I will study it, as I believe will everyone here. I envisage some poor community support officer having to explain the situation when he tries to do something on the street.
	Amendment No. 204 introduces a serious question because it seems to call into question what is the nature of an offence. The Bill, as drafted, at paragraph 2(6)(b) on page 110 states that it is,
	"an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused . . . injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or . . . the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property; but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation".
	If one tries to abbreviate that, what it says is that an offence is not an offence unless it is designated as one. I find that a rather convoluted way of drafting legislation and cannot resist asking the Government precisely what it means. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to put this on the record. It is a problem when one amendment in a group is moved because my notes are necessarily comprehensive for all the amendments. While I shall speak to Amendment No. 204, some of the preceding paragraphs which I am not going to use may have been relevant.
	As far as concerns Amendment No. 204 the Government believe that they must retain local flexibility. The ability to treat an offence as a relevant one, subject to conditions specified in the community support officer's designation, is part of that flexibility. For example, the conditions may limit relevant offences to those offences witnessed by the community support officer or exclude certain offences or categories of offence.
	The Metropolitan Police have argued strongly for provision to be made for community support officers to exercise a range of powers, including the power to detain and, where necessary, use reasonable force if they are to be effective in dealing with low level disorder. That role will be enhanced if community support officers are able to act in support of the police.
	Furthermore, community support officers can also operate as professional witnesses in certain cases. I hope that those paragraphs will satisfy the noble Lord. If not, I shall write to him unless he wishes to return to this at a later stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did not understand the original paragraph and I am not entirely sure that I have understood his response. However, I shall study it and seek further advice sufficient to make the position plain. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 205 to 216 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 217:
	Page 118, line 14, leave out paragraph 24.

Lord Bradshaw: Paragraph 24 on page 118 of the Bill relates to intimate body searches. We are concerned that intimate searches may be carried out by community support officers. We believe that that goes rather too far. If someone needs to undergo an intimate search, then that person should be taken to the police station and the search should be carried out by a police officer and should, of course, be subject to all the safeguards that such a search would normally require. For example, an intimate search would not be undertaken in the street.
	We think that paragraph 24 of Schedule 4 should be left out. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can safely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this is a highly sensitive issue. I welcome the opportunity to explain the thinking behind this part of the Bill and the safeguards that are already in place.
	When colleagues, fellow Ministers and I visit police forces and have discussions with police officers, we are often told of their frustrations about spending so much time inside the police station rather than out on the beat. As we have explained many times before, this part of the Bill seeks to change that so that suitably qualified civilians can perform some of the functions and duties, thus allowing officers to do what they should be doing; that is, working in the community.
	There is no point in having civilian detention officers if we then give them only limited powers so that they cannot perform the full range of duties necessary. This would require a police officer to stay behind to carry out functions such as intimate searching or administering warnings about the use of samples.
	We share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord that there must be safeguards, but I think that they are already in place. Detention officers will be employed by the police authority and will be under the careful direction and control of the chief officer—in the same way as police officers are. They will be accountable to the chief officer and subject to proper disciplinary and complaints procedures. I believe that we have made that plain in previous debates. Perhaps most important, the significant safeguards set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the corresponding PACE code of practice will continue to apply.
	It may help if I explain to noble Lords the effect of Section 55 of PACE, which provides that an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise an intimate search only where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that someone who has been arrested and is in police detention may have concealed on him something which could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others and which he might use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or that such a person may have concealed on him a class A drug and was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before arrest.
	In either case, an intimate search can be authorised only where the authorising officer reasonably believes that the concealed item cannot be found without an intimate search taking place. Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is not yet in force, lowers the rank of officer who can authorise an intimate search from superintendent to inspector. However, this change in rank of authorising officer does not affect the circumstances in which these searches are carried out.
	Currently, PACE and Code of Practice C provide other safeguards, which will apply to detention officers. For example, the reasons why an intimate search is considered necessary shall be explained to the person before the search takes place. An intimate search for drugs may only be carried out on medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse. Whenever an intimate search is carried out, the custody record must state which parts of the body were searched and why they were searched. All of those points must be made plain.
	An intimate search for other harmful articles may only be carried out at a police station or medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse unless the superintendent considers that this is impracticable. In such a case, the intimate search will be carried out by a constable or, with the passage of this schedule, a police-employed detention officer.
	PACE and Code of Practice C provide additional safeguards in these circumstances which will apply to a detention officer. For example, a constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex. Where an intimate search is carried out by a constable, the reason why it was impracticable for a medically qualified person to conduct it must be recorded. This will apply where detention officers are authorised to carry out a search.
	In practice, the circumstances in which a superintendent needs to authorise an intimate search of a person by a constable or, in the case of this Bill, a detention officer, are very rare. Such a situation might arise where, for example, a superintendent reasonably suspects that a person has concealed a harmful article on himself, such as a razor blade or a knife, and no doctor or nurse is available to conduct an intimate search.
	Code of Practice C which contains guidance on the conduct of intimate searches is currently under review as part of the general review that we are undertaking of all codes of practice. We are including clearer guidance for inspectors on exercising discretion in cases where a doctor or nurse is not available to conduct an intimate search.
	PACE and the code of practice have provided very adequate protections for the past 17 or 18 years. They have proved themselves and, through being subject to constant updating, they are robust and have withstood the test of time, as they were intended to do. We think that the significant safeguards that have been built in will not in any way be eroded by the introduction of this schedule. Any intimate search undertaken by those designated under this schedule will be made only with the authorisation of a senior police officer and will be in limited and controlled circumstances.
	For all those quite proper reasons, we feel that we must resist the amendment. While I understand why the amendment has been tabled, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Lord Elton: In order to clarify the background to this point, am I right in assuming that the effect of Clause 33(6), which we discussed before breaking for dinner, is that detention officers will only act as detention officers inside a police station. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned that such searches should not be undertaken on the street, but as I understand it, they would not be empowered to act on the street.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot believe that the noble Lord is anything other than correct. However, he should be assured that if there is any variation on that, the noble Lord will be told very promptly.

Lord Bradshaw: Before withdrawing the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister to look at this again. I stand corrected; this can only be done by detention officers. However, the people who are going to be employed as detention officers—in fact, they are already employed as detention officers in West Mercia, for example—are not employees of the police authority. They are people who work under contract for companies such as Group 4 or Premier Prisons, who provide a detention service for the police authority in their custody suites. Thus the detention officers are not police authority employees. Can I take it that they would not be allowed to carry out such searches?

Lord Rooker: I refer again to the first line of Clause 33:
	"The chief officer of police of any police force may designate any person who—
	(a) is employed by the police authority maintaining that force, and
	(b) is under the direction and control of that chief officer". I take that to mean police authority employees.

Lord Bradshaw: But they are employees of Group 4, or whoever employs them, and they are under contract to the police authority. It would need a watertight contract if such people were involved in intimate searches. The contract would have to cover both the PACE and discipline requirements for such people in all respects.
	This is a difficult area. I shall reflect on what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, to be crystal clear, there is no question of intimate searches being carried out in the street. I want to put that on the record. The power under PACE which can be conferred can be carried out only in a police station or a hospital. It is not a power which can be conferred on community support officers.
	I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that detention officers can exercise powers only in police stations. I hope that that is crystal clear.

Lord Tope: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance, but between now and the next stage will he look at the question of employees of police authorities only? The reason I ask is that in the Met—and I am sure this is happening in other parts of the country—we have a PFI scheme to build three new police stations in south London. As part of that PFI scheme, a number of the employees—and, frankly, I cannot remember whether they include the detention officer but I think they do—will be employees of the company in the PFI deal. I am not clear of my facts, but, under such circumstances—this is not the only such deal and will not be the only such deal in the years to come—is that actually the case? Perhaps the Minister will look at this issue and advise us on it outside the Chamber.

Lord Rooker: We shall look at the issue. But Clause 33 is entitled,
	"Police powers for police authority employees".
	I am not a lawyer, but an employee is an employee, not a contractor or a sub-contractor. People working for contractors would be the employees of someone else, not the police authority. Part of the whole reassurance in Clause 33 is that the people concerned are employees of the police authority under the direct, specific employer control of the chief constable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 219:
	Page 121, line 33, at end insert "; and
	( ) in relation to designation under section 33 by a Director General, means England and Wales."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Community safety accreditation schemes]:
	[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 221:
	Page 32, line 43, leave out "for the exercise"

Lord Bradshaw: I hope that the purpose of this group of amendments is self-evident. They seek to remove from the Bill the proposals for accredited persons to exercise police powers, however limited. We are not absolutely convinced that there is any need for such persons to exercise police powers.
	I am sure that the Committee is aware of many active neighbourhood and street warden schemes. They are extremely popular with local communities and there are many local initiatives. At present, such schemes do not have any police powers but the clause suggests that they should have. I should stress that many communities—and I speak for a large number of them in the APA—want to see their local wardens left as they are and not to exercise police powers. But as long as the powers in the Bill are permissive and can be adopted if communities want to adopt them, we are content to let the matter rest there. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I take it from the noble Lord's concluding remarks that he understands the significance of the amendments. They would undermine the effectiveness of the community safety accreditation schemes. Clauses 34 and 35 and Schedule 5, which these amendments seek to remove or seriously weaken, set out the powers which chief officers can give to members of accreditation schemes. That meets the noble Lord's final point because it is still enabling—in other words, there is a degree of discretion on the part of the chief officer.
	A wide range of organisations and their staff already contribute to community safety. One of the key objectives of this part of the Bill is to harness the energy and commitment of neighbourhood and street wardens, shopping centre security staff and many others—this is where we have talked about the park keepers—who make a direct and crucial contribution to making communities safer.
	The accreditation of such community safety organisations and the option to confer limited police powers on their employees will enable wardens and other accredited persons to be more effectively deployed. This is not policing on the cheap but a realistic, hard-headed approach to supporting police work.
	I should emphasise that a number of safeguards will be built in to the accreditation scheme. A dual key will operate. The employer—usually a local authority chief executive—would need to seek appropriate powers and the chief officer would need to agree them. The local police authority and other local agencies would be fully consulted on the proposed community safety accreditation scheme. The chief police officer would need to be satisfied that the person to be accredited was suitable to exercise the powers to be conferred on him, was capable of carrying out the community safety functions and was properly trained.
	The employer would need to have a suitable complaints and disciplinary procedure in place. All accredited persons would be publicly recognisable by a nationally-approved badge on their uniform. The continuation of any accreditation scheme would be subject to an annual review and the accreditation of any individual could be withdrawn at any time.
	The precise powers to be conferred on the employee of a particular accredited organisation would be depend on his or her role and local requirements. Schedule 5 therefore provides a menu from which powers can be selected to suit the training and deployment of accredited persons. In practice it is unlikely that chief officers will have more than a few variations in the powers extended to accredited persons.
	I believe that that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one is forcing this scheme on employers or chief constables. In the same spirit and for the same reasons as in our earlier long debate today, I hope that the Committee will accept the position as stated. We shall look at all issues raised. In not moving these amendments, the noble Lord can be assured that we have met his main point.

Lord Elton: Did the Minister say that these people would wear a nationally approved badge and not a nationally approved uniform? It seems rather odd. One would think that either the whole thing would be local or the whole thing would be national. Is there a reason for that?

Lord Rooker: I do not know, but I suspect that they may be employees of local authorities. The local authority may have the relevant uniforms for its employees, in the parks, for example; it may be that the private sector has a uniform for its shopping centre control wardens. All we are saying is this. Although people are not employed nationally in that sense, they are employed as part of a national scheme. They are approved and accredited by a chief of police—that is the key point. The badge would be the symbol to the public that they are bona fide, that they are not private sector, vigilantes, or free enterprise. To badge up someone else's uniform in a distinctive way would probably be the appropriate thing to do.

Lord Bradshaw: Again, given the Minister's assurances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 223:
	Page 32, line 44, after "him" insert "as community safety special constables"

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 244, 247 and 250. The purpose of the amendments is to change the status of the accredited community safety officers to that of special constables.
	We have had this debate ad nauseam, so there is no point in repeating all the arguments. However, I should like to make one or two points. It is clear—and I regret this—that the Government have not thought seriously about this possibility. They have decided to do things this way—using accredited people—and that is it. That is unfortunate.
	The effect will be that the specials will continue to languish. There is no original thinking about how to re-stimulate and re-enthuse the specials. This Bill provided an opportunity for that to happen. If that is the way the Government want it, so be it. It is regrettable, because there was the opportunity for a complete change of direction which would bring people back into the special constabulary. As with the Territorial Army, recruitment could have helped to overcome the ethnic barriers which cause so many problems for the police. Had that been by the specials route, it would undoubtedly have led some recruits into joining the regular police force, which would have won the approval of all of us.
	The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the Government are missing an opportunity. On the whole, they will be providing a somewhat devalued service to the public in future. If that is what they want, that is what they want. We find it regrettable.
	Turning to Amendment No. 247, the possibility arises in the Bill of the chief constable charging for costs of accreditation. We suggest that the cost of training should be added. However, I am bound to say as a matter of principle and practicality that it is more likely that the last thing a chief constable will be able to do is charge employers for the cost of accreditation. If anything, they will need inducements to join this scheme. Outside employers and even local authorities will not find it a particularly attractive option. They will become subject to complaints procedures which they must have in place. If anything goes wrong, it will impose quite a burden on any outside employer who has become involved in one of these schemes. However, this subject was roundly debated earlier. I beg to move.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support the purpose behind the amendments as described by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Surely, the best way forward would be an expansion of the special constabulary. Although I understand the principle behind the introduction of community support officers, I hope the fact that the Government are proceeding down this line does not mean that they will not at the same time attempt to increase the number of special constables.
	One was concerned earlier this week when one heard the Minister's reference to the enormous drop in the number of special constables as compared to some 10 or 20 years ago. I hope that the Minister is not going to say that the provisions of this Bill should be an excuse for not trying to recruit more special constables. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has said, in the end the recognised special constable is the best back-up for the permanent police force given the possibility that many become police officers.

Lord Renton: I, too, support the amendments. Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. For many years, special constables have played a vital part in keeping order in our society, especially on occasions when the police must be assumed to be under greater pressure than they normally are. Therefore, these amendments are important.
	Perhaps I may mention a purely grammatical matter which I have noticed in passing. I first learnt to read and write before 1914. It may be that the language has changed a little since that time. We always used to say that things and people should be accredited "with", not "of". The last two lines of subsection (1) say:
	"for the exercise within his police area by persons accredited by him under section 35 of the powers conferred by their accreditations".
	Surely it should be "with the powers".

Lord Rooker: Far be it from me to complain about people's attendance. I cannot put my hands on my notes from Tuesday, but we had a short debate on two amendments relating specifically to Specials in which I explained that the Government are reviewing the possibility of payments and bounties for Specials to try to increase recruitment. There has been a drop of several thousand Specials over the past four years, down to 13,000 from about 20,000. As a separate exercise—and this is on the record from our debate earlier in the week—we are taking forward a project with ACPO and, I think, the Association of Police Authorities, which has been designed to find ways to increase the number of Specials. Nothing that I say today in any way qualifies what I said on Tuesday. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to think that we are not concerned about the drop in the number of Specials, because we are.
	The Specials are a vital resource in ensuring public confidence. As volunteers, they are the embodiment of active citizenship. The Government want to reverse the decline in the number of Specials. As part of that, we are looking at ways of improving the recruitment and retention of Specials, including exploring the case for paying an allowance to recognise levels of commitment. We are not looking to change the status of Specials to that of paid employees, as we believe that that would detract from their special status.
	The amendments would have two possible effects. They could create a category of employed status Specials, whose main job would be working as Specials, with the full powers of volunteer Specials, including powers of arrest—in other words they would be full constables. In effect, the amendments could create a less well paid regular force employed by an outside organisation. Alternatively, the amendments might require organisations that promote active citizenship among their staff to pay all the costs involved if any of their staff want to become volunteer Specials, including the costs involved in accreditation and training. That is not much of an incentive to small organisations to promote becoming a Special over other forms of volunteering, which are of minimal cost to the employer.
	Volunteer Specials are an essential and valuable part of the police service, but they are not the solution to the problems of anti-social behaviour. By their very nature, Specials are available outside normal working hours. Most Specials have a job in addition to their voluntary work. They are available at weekends and in the evenings.
	Neighbourhood wardens and others for whom community safety and regeneration is a full-time job are available at the beginning and end of the school day, on pension day and during the school holidays. They provide a full-time community presence, which is enhanced by the presence of the Specials when they are available. There is a desire to do something for the Specials. I said on Tuesday that I regretted that we were not able to do anything in this Bill, but I pointed out that there was legislation in 1992 under which a regulation was put through both Houses that would enable us to make the changes following our review. We would not require primary legislation to do that. That is a separate exercise and is not being negated in any way by the Bill's proposals for community support officers or the accredited people through their organisations.
	I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. He does not want community support officers, period. The amendment is a way of converting the idea into Specials. Specials look like police officers because they are police officers, with the full powers of constables. I hope that my explanation of the powers and commitment of the Specials is not compatible with our proposals for the people who would be designated under this part of the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is any help to the Minister, he dealt with the issue on Tuesday at cols. 181 and 182. His memory is remarkably good. The experimental bounty was introduced in 1993.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I accept what the Minister said about costs and I agree with him. I expressed some doubts when I moved the amendment. However, he has failed to understand what we are trying to do. He has suggested that these people are going to be employed as full-time special constables. That is not the point of the amendments. These people will be doing a full-time job, and they will continue to do that job. However, as they will be accredited—just as they would be accredited under the accreditation scheme—they will be accredited special constables. It would be a supplementary addition to their job, not a substitute for it. It is a completely new approach to the whole issue.
	Regrettably, the Minister has failed to make that distinction. He is still thinking about special constables in the old, traditional way as volunteers doing something outside their normal job. The whole purpose of this group of amendments is to make it possible for them to do their job and to have a supplementary responsibility, just at the accredited safety officers will have. The supplementary responsibility will make them special constables as opposed to accredited officers. That is the only distinction.

Lord Rooker: Is the noble Lord proposing that full-time employees of an employer should have the full powers of a regular police constable, as specials have?

Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes.

Lord Rooker: It is a remarkable innovation then.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, it is a remarkable innovation, and we should be quite clear about it. That is why I say that it is a radical proposal.
	I shall leave it there. The Minister is now aware of the point, and that is satisfactory. We have also identified the difference between us. I ask him to think about the point, which is very important. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 224 to 226 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 227:
	Page 33, line 24, leave out subsection (5).

Lord Dixon-Smith: This is a probing amendment. Clause 34(5) states:
	"A community safety accreditation scheme must contain provision for the making of arrangements with employers who . . . are carrying on business in the police area in question, or . . . are carrying on business in relation to the whole or any part of that area or in relation to places situated within it".
	The amendment seeks to uncover precisely what is meant by the provision. Firms such as Group 4 and Securicor, for example, have company headquarters. Are they carrying on business only at the location of that headquarters or across the whole country? If the latter, their employees policing a shopping centre could be accredited in that area although their headquarters were somewhere else and all their revenue and taxes went elsewhere. The amendment makes a small point of detail which seeks to ascertain the meaning of the provision, which is loosely worded. We shall have to be able to gain employers' co-operation.
	There is another point. It appears that employers who indulge in these schemes will pick up a liability if their employees do anything wrong when acting on behalf of the police. The point is dealt with in Amendment No. 260, which is in this group. We have to be very clear that, should someone acting with police powers make a mistake, liability for that mistake should go back to the police rather than to the employer.
	Both issues are very important in their own way, although in the context of some of the matters we have discussed they may seem trivial. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that we can reassure the noble Lord sufficiently. As I understand the amendments, they appear to be concerned about a shift in responsibility and legal liability for unlawful conduct on the part of staff who are given certain powers.
	So far as we are concerned it is immaterial where a company's headquarters are located. If Group 4 is contracted to provide the security in a shopping centre in Epsom, it is carrying on a business in Epsom. The location of its headquarters does not have much relevance. The important matter is that whoever is deployed or employed as a neighbourhood warden has already built up a reputation for his or her commitment and professionalism. Such wardens will be eligible, if their employer and the local chief constable agree, to be accredited as part of a community safety accreditation scheme and could be extended limited appropriate powers.
	We do not want to bring wardens and the like under the control and supervision of the police; their strength is their independence. As part of the accreditation process the training and professionalism of both the individual staff and their employers will be carefully assessed and powers will only be extended where the chief officer is satisfied with standards of training and professionalism and that there is appropriate supervision in place. That is the important point.
	The accreditation of an organisation and the extension of powers to employees will be reviewed regularly to ensure that the standards we expect are maintained. That is another important assurance for the noble Lord to take into account. We believe that we have the safeguards in place to ensure that supervision of exercise of powers is of a high standard. We already trust others to exercise official powers and their employers to supervise them; these safeguards will enable the public to trust accredited persons and their employers in the same way.
	We believe that bringing accredited organisations under the direct control of the police by making them liable for the actions of accredited persons will discourage organisations from working in co-ordination with the police and could be a burden on the police and mean that those organisations that are accredited would lose their independence.
	I hope that those assurances help the noble Lord. I understand what motivated him to table the amendment, but we believe that we have adequate checking mechanisms in place and that the liabilities are understood.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am afraid that I yield to no one in my ignorance of these procedures but I thought that Amendment No. 260 was grouped with the amendment we are discussing. I thought that my noble friend on the Front Bench alluded to the making of a joint tort-feasor in connection with the employer. I raised that matter briefly at Second Reading. I do not think that the Minister mentioned it in his reply. In my view what is wrong here—I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the matter—is the following.
	In law you are liable as an employer for the actions of your employee only if they are carried out in the course of his employment with you. That is putting the matter very generally. Yet here we have a blanket imposition of liability upon the employer as a joint tort-feasor, joint wrongdoer, with the chief officer of police in circumstances—which will catch the employer—where he may have given the most express instructions to his employee not to do a certain thing in the course of his work as an accredited officer and has exercised proper supervision to see that he does not. Yet, none the less, his instructions are broken. In those circumstances I believe that anyone would say that it was unjust to make the employer liable. If anyone is to be liable it should be the police on whose behalf this work is being carried out.
	Which employers will be approached for accreditation purposes? We have heard of some instances of providers of private services of a security character but the matter is not limited to that. Will the Minister deal with that point? I believe that it is a fairly simple one which can be dealt with today, particularly as it was raised at Second Reading.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not an expert in tort but I should think that in the circumstances that the noble and learned Lord described, there probably was a strict liability because the instructions or guidance had been issued by the employer, not the police. I do not necessarily believe that the liability would shift, but I shall take advice on that. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord if we did not cover that point in the fallout from our debate at Second Reading. A difficulty may well be caused in the situation that he described. That is one of the circumstances in which liability is perhaps more strict that he would wish.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Liability can be strict only if the Bill imposes it, which it does. It is that which I respectfully suggest is unjust.

Lord Condon: I place on the record the fact that I am a non-executive director of Securicor—particular firms have been mentioned—and my silence on this matter should be seen in that context.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In London, there is much interest among local boroughs about accredited persons. They should also be considered in this respect.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the convenience of Members of the Committee, our advice is that in this instance the employer will be liable for unlawful conduct only in the course of the person's employment and in reliance or purported reliance on designation or accreditation. I think that it is right to say that a member of the public should have a remedy against an organisation, not an individual. That must be right.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will examine this matter again because I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of the position. I am quite prepared to find that I am wrong in the event, but in this regard the provision would impose strict liability on anything done by an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation or accreditation. It is important for the guy in the street who is stopped and told that he is behaving in an anti-social way to know who he will sue. He will assume that the person is acting within the course of his employment. One can envisage certain circumstances in which he will not be; none the less, strict liability will be imposed, as the clause is currently drafted, on the employer.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We will need to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, who is obviously very learned in these matters. I have put our interpretation on the record.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for pursuing this point. The only sensible advice that one could give to any employer is to avoid letting his staff be accredited because of this potential liability, and I do not think that that is what the Government intend. They may think that that position will not arise but we are right to fear that it could arise. If it could arise, the advice that I suggested would be appropriate and that would rather destroy the scheme's credibility. I hope that the Government will carefully examine the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 229:
	Page 33, line 32, leave out subsection (6).

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment returns us to the point that we have just been discussing, and I shall not discuss it further; we have already dealt with it.
	Amendment No. 230, which is grouped with Amendment No. 229, would leave out subsection (6) on page 33 at line 32 and insert:
	"A chief officer of police who establishes and maintains a community safety accreditation scheme shall ensure that the employers of the persons on whom powers are conferred have established and maintain satisfactory procedures for the handling of complaints, which, at the election of the complainant, may be referred to the Commission in the event the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of such a complaint".
	That would make it absolutely clear in the Bill what would happen if a complaint causes a problem.
	Amendment No. 232 imposes on the chief officer a duty to ensure that the employers of an accredited person have an adequate complaints procedure. We have more or less dealt with that point.
	Finally, Amendment No. 233 states that it will be the duty of a chief officer to establish and maintain for public inspection a register of the employees against whom complaints are made. We do not believe that that is an unreasonable suggestion to make; nor is it unreasonable to suggest, as we seek to do in Amendment No. 249, that the chief officer must have regard to that list of complaints if, in fact, he is looking to renew accreditation. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord said, this debate leads on neatly from the preceding one. It appears to me that the noble Lord is seeking—I understand why—to provide further safeguards in relation to the complaints systems of organisations that have been accredited under Clause 34.
	We absolutely agree that we want these arrangements to be transparent and robust. We also want members of the public to feel confident, as the noble Lord said, that they have powers of redress against anyone who is working as part of an accredited community safety scheme. Clearly there is a balance to be drawn, but we believe that we already have sufficient safeguards in place. To introduce more could leave us open to the claim that we are unnecessarily increasing the burdens on the police service while saying that we are committed to reducing them. At this moment, Sir David O'Dowd, the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, is leading a task force to reduce levels of bureaucracy in the police service.
	We have already provided in Clause 34(6) that chief officers must ensure that satisfactory complaints handling procedures are established and maintained. Clause 35(7) provides that accreditations are subject to periodic review and renewal. If there is evidence that previously satisfactory systems are no longer working, then chief officers will be able to withdraw all accreditations involving that employer as the criteria for accreditation will no longer be met.
	We have also provided in Clause 36(5)—I believe that perhaps this goes some way towards meeting the point raised in the earlier debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that, in the event of torts, the employer and employee will be held jointly liable. In our view, that will provide a strong incentive to employers, whose very purpose and function depends on gaining and keeping the respect and confidence of the communities with whom they are working in partnership, to ensure that procedures are followed and that any complaints are handled properly and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.
	Clause 39 will require chief officers to have regard to a code of practice on the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this part of the Bill. It will include guidance on the accreditation process and will ensure that organisations operate satisfactory complaints handling processes. It would be possible to see this as a further safeguard in the sense that we want to trial these matters. We shall pilot the accreditation schemes before they are available for implementation and roll-out nationally. Therefore, there will be a thorough process of piloting, trying and testing the procedures to ensure that they work and that they are properly operable.
	We believe that we have the balance right between bureaucracy and ensuring that the public can trust that there is sufficient regulation. We believe that there is the right balance between regulation and a lighter touch to ensure a proper level of protection in the case of complaints.
	Findings from the pilot schemes will indicate whether that balance is right and they will be used to advise us in rolling out and perfecting the scheme nationally. They will also enable us to amend the code of practice issued under Clause 39, if appropriate. I hope that that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.

Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say, in support of my noble friend, that it seems odd, having expended so much effort in producing the new commission to cover the whole of the police force everywhere, to then construct a new wing attached to the police force which will not be subject to it. I do not want to promote a long debate tonight. However, I want to declare an interest if the matter comes back on Report.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend, who raised a valid point. We are not completely satisfied that this part of the Bill is consistent both with other parts of the Bill and with what we think would be a desirable situation. We have had a fairly full explanation, for which I am grateful. We shall study it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 230 to 233 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may return briefly to vicarious liability, which we discussed a few moments ago. On instructions from behind him, to the north east as seen from here, the Minister said that there is a safeguard because the person would have to be acting in the course of his employment. I thought that that was wrong and suggested so. However, the point I should have taken is to be found on page 35, line 15, in subsection (5), which states:
	"[all] conduct by such an employee . . . shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment.
	The clause makes it conduct in the course of his employment, even where the ordinary law in the circumstances with which we are concerned would not. That is the fallacy of the argument. I wanted to mention that before the whole matter disappeared.

Clause 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes]:
	[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 235:
	Page 34, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 235 deals with a matter which causes us concern. As drafted, the Bill would require that the employer of an accredited person would be able to supervise the carrying out of a police function. Such employers, often commercial employers or local authorities, however well intentioned, will not be experienced in police matters. It seems to us wrong for them to be held responsible for the supervision of a police function by an accredited person. We believe that that places an unreasonable burden on them.
	Amendment No. 236 seeks to omit paragraph (b), which is unnecessary in view of the wording in subsections (c) and (d). The Minister will be able to accept Amendment No. 237 with no difficulty. It simply leaves out the word "himself". A person can be none other than himself. He cannot be somebody else. Therefore, the word is unnecessary.
	My only comment on Amendments Nos. 239 and 241 is that if we were to go down the special constable route which we propose, both paragraphs would be unnecessary. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: As to Amendment No. 237, I shall take advice on the use of "himself". I am sure that there is a good legal reason.
	The amendments would remove the requirement for chief officers to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the person who is to be accredited—including checks into their capability to perform the functions for which powers are sought, the training that they have received in respect of those powers and the suitability of the person's employer to supervise the carrying out of those functions.
	We are talking not about community support officers but about employees of someone other than the police authority. It is wholly proper that the chief constable can make sure that the employer has all the necessary functions and capabilities in place before designating employees. We are dealing with a mixed bag—maybe local authorities.
	The jobs in question are being done now. Local authorities that are employing wardens, or shopping centre managers who are employing their own heavy mob and gatekeepers, are doing so as a commercial enterprise—unfettered in many respects, because they are not performing police functions anyway. The beauty of the accreditation scheme and giving police a role is that the chief police officer will be able to ensure the bona fides of the employer before employees are designated. The duty of the employer is not that of the chief constable. It is vital that those checks are made before a person is accredited.
	Clause 35(4) must be left as it stands because it is essential to have a statutory framework for the accreditation of the powers, as part of the public confidence factor. It is not sufficient to require that the chief officer satisfies himself of the suitability of the individual to be accredited. The process must include an assessment of the person's capability and training and a check that the employer is a fit and proper person.
	Checks on the individual to be accredited and the employer would cover criminal records and good character, which are essential to ensure that powers are only conferred on appropriate persons. Checks on training will enable the chief officer to be reassured that the individuals have been trained to exercise the powers conferred and reach the required standards in their knowledge of relevant law, first aid and conflict resolution. There is probably no statutory training requirement at present, which provides the loophole. People can put on a uniform, sell a service and operate—and the public think that they must be okay because they are in uniform. From some stories, some of them certainly have not been trained in conflict resolution. Police checks will add extra comfort.
	We intend to consult stakeholders on the checks to be made. I cannot rely on the code of practice too much because it is important to pilot this specifically. With community support officers, piloting is almost de facto because the Metropolitan Police want to get on with it. Others may be less certain, so it becomes a sort of a pilot. With accreditation, we will pilot and will not allow schemes to be rolled out until we have feedback on the advice given in the code of practice.
	I have been on my feet a few minutes but no one has brought me a note about "himself", so I will have to write to the noble Lord on that point.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not a lawyer, but I have studied Amendment No. 237. It occurs to me that the word "himself" appears in this paragraph for the sake of clarity. The person's employer in paragraph (a) has been described as,
	"a fit and proper person".
	Therefore, as a new person is introduced in paragraph (b), it is conceivable that it was felt necessary to add the word "himself" in order to produce a distinguishing mark between the two.

Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I am sure that there is a note somewhere to that effect.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke who may have produced the right explanation. However, I am a little disappointed in what the Minister said in response. Where local authorities are operating wardening schemes, or where a commercial security firm is providing security officers for a shopping centre, police powers are not being exercised. Let us be clear about this: they do not need to have the sort of supervision and training, and so on, that is required.
	The Minister had much to say about approving the employer as a "fit and proper person" to employ people to carry out such work. But the bit of the Bill that we seek to remove is very specific in this respect. When we are talking about getting people accredited and ensuring that they are properly trained, it does not have anything to do with the employer being a fit and proper person. The provision says that a person's employer is,
	"a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions"—
	in other words, police functions. Indeed, they are nothing else. They are not related to employer/employee relations, or anything else. They are pure police functions. Even if the employer were competent to do so, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to have a third party employer supervising police functions. We are talking about policing, and the integrity of policing. I do not like that phrase in the Bill because it is very specific.
	I have heard what the Minister said, and I hope that he heard what I said. Perhaps we should both go away and consider all that has been said on the subject. It is always possible that we may reach a satisfactory conclusion at some time in the future, though we shall not do so tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 236 to 242 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 243:
	Page 34, line 12, leave out from beginning to "for" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order provide for appropriate fees to be charged by a chief officer of police"

Lord Dixon-Smith: With this amendment we turn our attention to the wording in the Bill that deals with the question of fees. My preference is that no fees should be involved in the process. I cannot see any incentive for outside employers to become involved in such schemes. Indeed, I can envisage many disadvantages for them. However, if there are to be fees, we believe that they should be agreed on an approved scale rather than it being an option for a chief constable to charge what he thinks fit. Of course, if he believes that nothing is fit that might be "appropriate". He could conceivably see this as a commercial operation, though that is highly unlikely. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 244 and 246, which are grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. Our amendments deal simply with the question of who is responsible for the police fund. At present, we believe that it is the police authority. If that is so, we would seek to amend the subsection to make it the responsibility of the police authority to charge such fees as it "considers appropriate", rather than it being a matter for the chief officer of police.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We probably disagree with the noble Lord's last point. It should be for the chief officer to decide the size of the fee. Clearly, there would need to be consultation within the police authorities over that.
	The purpose of the clause is to enable the authorities to cover only those costs that they incur during the process of accrediting new and renewal applications. It is not a licence for chief officers to create additional wealth for their forces. In line with that, the code of practice under Clause 39—to which chief officers must have regard—will make it clear that this should not be regarded as a fund-raising exercise. It will require that the costs involved in the accreditation process are offset by the fees charged to make the process basically cost neutral to the force, so that it does not have to transfer resources from elsewhere, and obviously, in particular, frontline services.
	If the charge was set nationally by the Secretary of State, the effect could lead to profits being made in some force areas. Obviously, it will depend on a force's costs, the way in which it builds up its costs base and the way in which it charges items. That would put some forces at a financial advantage and others at a disadvantage in creating these accreditation schemes. So there could be a perverse effect.
	The Bill as drafted, supported by the code of practice issued under Clause 39, probably provides the best framework for charging fees as part of the accreditation process; protecting both employers from being charged more than necessary and the police from having to subsidise the process from their core costs.
	We take the view that the police authority must be fully involved and, as I have said, consulted about all aspects of setting up community safety accreditation schemes in their force areas, including the size of any fee. So, in general terms, I think that that satisfies the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. These issues will be covered in the code of practice under Clause 39.
	Although we have sympathy with the noble Lords' amendments, as I have explained the scheme to the Committee, it should give the chief officer the flexibility to vary the fee on accreditation so as to ensure that it matches any costs being incurred. It will also mean that the fee is appropriate to the force area.
	We give a very firm undertaking that the matters will be properly dealt with in the code of practice. I think that that probably enables the noble Lords to feel confident that they can withdraw the amendments.

Lord Bradshaw: I make the point that the Police Act 1996 is absolutely clear on this matter; it is the police authority which makes the charge on the advice of a chief office and it is responsible for collecting it. It does not matter very much to me, but I think that the Minister is in error. I ask that on Report we are absolutely clear—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our understanding of the best means of operating this scheme is for the chief officer to set the fee in consultation with the police authority. I suspect that it is an issue that the police authority finance committee will ruminate over for some time in helping him come to that conclusion.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We should be quite clear that what is cost neutral to the police force will definitely cost someone some money. That may prove to be a problem, but that remains to be seen. I doubt whether anyone will want to get involved in these schemes with direct costs, bearing in mind all the other problems and potential liabilities that the Bill seems to provide for. We shall consider what has been said, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 244 to 247 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 248:
	Page 34, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment relates to another nice little bit of wording in the Bill that seems to me to add confusion. The clause states:
	"A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of an accreditation under this section—
	(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that accreditation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment"—
	all right, we have debated that and we do not need to go over that ground any more. But the clause continues:
	"shall be so authorised or required subject to such other restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his accreditation".
	Here we go round the whole thing again, because we get down to the business of an individual being given an individual specification for his job, instead of everyone standing on familiar ground, so that we can all understand.
	Those words are unnecessary; it is unfortunate that they are there. I hope that the Minister will agree to expunge them. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the noble Lord. We need the words in the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to explain why.
	We want to enable police forces to mould the extension of powers to accredited persons to fit local policing needs and the aspirations of local people. There will be occasions when powers should be extended more traditionally—operating all day, every day and anywhere in the force area. But there is a place in modern policing for a different approach reflecting the needs of individual communities. The provision is highly targeted.
	An example would be the security staff in a shopping centre. It would be in keeping with an accreditation scheme involving a security firm to confer powers in Schedule 5 on the shopping centre security staff, but to limit the exercise of those powers to the confines of the shopping centre. It would clearly be inappropriate in such a case for staff to be able to exercise powers outside the area in which they are contracted to work.
	Or consider a crime hotspot—one of the estates to which I referred earlier. The police may tackle that by providing intensive policing for a set period. They may as part of a whole community approach to reducing crime in that area accredit community safety organisations to work only in that geographical area, providing a permanent patrolling presence in that part of the locality.
	The extension of the powers will require consultation with the police authority—and through the authority the local community—so that precise restrictions and conditions to be applied can be agreed. Pilots of such accreditation schemes will monitor the effectiveness of restrictions and conditions and ensure that they are appropriate for, and agreed and understood by, the communities in which accredited people work.
	We believe that it is important that chief officers can ensure that the role of the extended police family fits the policing style and needs of their force area. I accept that that ability to mould the extension of powers is non-traditional—new—but that does not make it wrong. We are trying to tackle those problems in a new way. Although people may think that the public will be confused by that approach, I certainly do not think that that will be true when they see far more uniformed people in their localities.
	I hope that giving those practical examples provides a translation of paragraph (b). Reading the opening of subsection (6), one would not have a clue how it will touch the lives of people in this country. I hope that I have given examples of how, if we lost those words, we should not be able to give the chief officers flexibility to mould policing to the needs of local communities.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I was almost about to say that it satisfied me, but I do not want to see him fall off the Bench. However, it is unlikely that we shall need to bring this amendment back. I am grateful for his explanation, which makes the situation clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 not moved.]

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before we leave our debate on the clause, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who, having said, "I am not a lawyer", did not add the normally mandatory words "thank God". Perhaps he thought that they would be superfluous.

Lord Rooker: I shall confirm what I said without the note. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, was right: the word "himself" was there to distinguish the employer from the employee. He got it absolutely right.

Clause 35 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Powers exercisable by accredited persons]:
	[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 252:
	Page 122, line 25, at end insert "or other proof of identity"

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This amendment and Amendment No. 253 are simple and self-explanatory. I tabled them because one of the most contentious matters is asking someone to wait with an accredited person, if necessary, for up to half an hour. Much of our debate has revolved around that matter.
	It is also unsatisfactory that there will be no way of knowing whether the name and address given by someone are accurate. The Minister has said to me that the Government were clear that they would not oblige people to carry identity cards. I have, therefore, not suggested that, although I had originally intended to propose it in the amendment. However, there are all sorts of cards that people might have—for example, a driving licence or a security pass such as we have here. There are all sorts of forms of identification. If those were produced and accepted, it would save a lot of aggro all round. That would be desirable.
	The second amendment would cover a situation in which someone produced a proof of identity that was not genuine. They might have stolen someone else's identity card—not one with a photo on it, but some other type of card.
	I move the amendment in the hope that it would help avoid unpleasant situations that might end up in a degree of aggression with which the accredited person would not be equipped to cope. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for that explanation and for the spirit in which she spoke to the amendment. I would have liked nothing more than to have a debate about ID cards and entitlement cards, but not at three minutes past ten o'clock on a Thursday evening.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that accredited individuals will, in some cases, want to see proof of a person's identity and their home address, before they are satisfied that the details that they have been given are correct. In practice, accredited people will ask to see proof of identity and address, and we will set out guidelines in the code of practice, under Clause 39, about this matter. We need not amend the Bill; it can be done through the code of practice.
	We have made it abundantly clear, whatever our conclusions, that we will not introduce any form of entitlement card that a person might be required to carry and produce. That is ruled out. I have to say that every time, so that there is no misunderstanding in the media. It is not noble Lords who will misunderstand; it is others who are out to scupper the plan, even though we have not consulted on it yet.
	In the recent White Paper on immigration and asylum, there is an announcement that the Government will, in the summer, produce a full, detailed and comprehensive consultation paper on the issue of entitlement cards—whether they are good or bad, whether we ought to have them and how they might work. However, as I said, I hope that we can cover the fair points raised by the noble Baroness in the code of practice. That having been said, I hope that she will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 254A:
	Page 123, line 17, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Power to use reasonable force to detain person
	(1) This paragraph applies where the accreditation of an accredited person—
	(a) specifies that this paragraph applies to him;
	(b) specifies that any or all of paragraphs 1 and 2 also apply to him; and
	(c) sets out the matters in respect of which he has the power conferred by this paragraph.
	(2) The matters that may be set out in an accreditation as the matters in respect of which a person has the power conferred by this paragraph shall be confined to—
	(a) offences that are relevant fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to the accredited person;
	(b) offences that are relevant offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 to the accredited person; and
	(c) behaviour that constitutes acting in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)).
	(3) In any case in which a person to whom this paragraph applies has imposed a requirement on any other person under paragraph 2(1) or 3(1) in respect of anything appearing to him to be a matter set out in the accreditation, he may use reasonable force to prevent that other person from making off while he is either—
	(a) subject to a requirement imposed in that case by the accredited person under paragraph 2(2); or
	(b) accompanying the accredited person to a police station in accordance with an election made in that case under paragraph 2(3)."

Baroness Hanham: I feel like Charlie Drake playing in the orchestra when he stood up with the triangle and missed the beat. I have tabled only two amendments to the Bill, Amendments Nos. 254A and 254B, and I want to make it clear at the outset that I am a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That borough has asked me to bring forward these amendments.
	As I indicated earlier, the Royal Borough is seeking to introduce borough constables. That is being done in co-operation with the Metropolitan Police. The intention is that they should be fully trained in conjunction with the police and should be a well-geared force. The one aspect that is difficult is that, while they will have the powers to detain, they will not have the powers enabling them to use reasonable force.
	To all intents and purposes, borough constables will do the same job as will be done by the community officers. It would seem sensible that they should have the same power to use reasonable force, however "reasonable force" is to be defined. People will not then be able to put up two fingers to them, as described earlier, and rush off. It is appropriate that an accredited organisation, as a borough will have to become, should have such powers.
	It may be that before the powers are granted to an individual borough or accredited organisation they need to be sanctioned by someone else. Whether that should be the local police authority, as suggested, or the Secretary of State I know not. However, somewhere along the line it will be important that there is the right to use reasonable force. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. As I said at Second Reading, the boroughs want the right to work in conjunction with the police. However, they want in particular to be able to retain people within their own neighbourhood so that they cannot suddenly be spirited away somewhere else. That is why such provision is most important.

Lord Rooker: There is a fundamental reason why we cannot accept the reasonable use of force. The accredited persons are not under the direct and specific control of the chief constable; they are employees of someone else. That is why the reasonable use of force is ruled out.
	The issue of their being spirited away from one borough to another should not exist. If they are employees of the borough and the council, they are employees of the borough and the council. The employer would decide where they were located, not the police. A separate issue is therefore involved. There is no reason to suppose that if the borough is organising an accredited community scheme it will not be in control of the people. It will be in control of the people because it will be the employer. There will be no question of people being spirited away. However, as the individuals will not be directly employed under the control of the police the question of giving them the power to use reasonable force is ruled out.
	The borough constables will have most of the powers of community support officers but they will not have the power to issue fixed penalty notices; they will not have the power to use reasonable force; and they will not have the power of entry to save life or limb or to prevent serious injury or damage to property. There are also a couple of other powers which they will not have. It must therefore be said that they are more limited than the community support officers, but, as we said earlier, those officers will be employees of the police authority and under the direct control of the chief constable. That is the fundamental reason why I must say to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept her amendments.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before my noble friend Lady Hanham rises to reply, I should like to raise a point which was first covered in the debate on Second Reading. London boroughs would like to see a halfway house between the accredited person and the community support officer. They would like to be able to run things jointly with the police and to be involved in these affairs. That would put them in a much stronger position. However, the one problem about that would be whether the police would then be able to whisk the neighbourhood policemen away.
	Can the Minister consider whether it would be possible to bring forward an amendment which would allow the joint commissioning of a force between a local authority and the Metropolitan Police? Many London boroughs would welcome that kind of arrangement.

Lord Rooker: I dare not respond to that on the hoof. We have here two quite specific and distinct areas: community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. One of those proposals is fundamentally opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but the noble Baroness now asks me to look into creating a hybrid of the two.
	In effect, we can only repeat that it is up to chief constables to decide, first, whether to take on community support officers and what those officers will do and then to confer the necessary powers. Secondly, we will give chief constables the right to decide whether they will accredit community safety schemes with or without local authorities and with or without the private sector.
	It may be that in a place as varied as London, with 8 million people, several thousand police officers and some 32 boroughs—each a great deal smaller than Birmingham, I might add—some operations that would suit both the police and the local community could be considered. However, from a standing start, as it were, I cannot give the noble Baroness the specific answers that she requires. I believe that these proposals are outwith what is set out in the Bill.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look into this matter to the extent only as to whether the chief officer would have the power to agree to have community support officers run jointly between the Metropolitan Police and a local authority. Would he have the right to do that or would such a power have to be created? I am happy to wait for the Minister to write to me on this.

Lord Rooker: As always, I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness. Of course, it may be a question of who pays for the community support officers. Those are issues that must be considered. As I have said, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hanham: I think that we have raised here a point that slightly differs from what is in the Bill; that is, the possibility of creating borough constables and their being funded by and large by local authorities. My local authority is now prepared to commit quite substantial sums of money to this.
	I shall return to where I started. My concern over the right to use reasonable force is that if there are going to be accredited persons on the street, they should have the power to hold someone for 30 minutes while, presumably, the police are summoned to come and help them. It is not much use if the person being held is allowed to scarper off down the road and no one has the right to bring them down with a rugby tackle. Perhaps that exaggerates the case a little. However, what is being suggested here will probably leave the accredited officers without the tools to do the job.
	I understand the Minister's explanation that under normal circumstances the chief constable would have to authorise the right to detain a person using reasonable force. However, would the Minister be kind enough to look into whether there is some way the provision could be amended to enable such forces—which I believe may now spring up all over the country as local authorities take it on—to be given the right to use reasonable force? If he will, then I shall withdraw my amendment.

Lord Rooker: I am willing to look at all of these suggestions. On the other hand, I think that the noble Baroness is proposing something that contradicts the heart of our proposals. It may be that I have to be wholly negative in my response. Nevertheless, I have heard what she has said. I shall take it away and seek further advice.

Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 254B:
	Page 124, line 11, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Seizure of cycles
	(1) This paragraph applies in respect of an accredited person—
	(a) whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him; and
	(b) whose employer, for the purposes of section 35 of this Act, is a local authority.
	(2) If an accredited person to whom this section applies has given a person a fixed penalty notice under section 54 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty notices) in respect of an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 (c. 50) (riding on a footway) committed by cycling he may seize the cycle in respect of which the alleged offence was committed.
	(3) If any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2) and the person to whom the fixed penalty notice was given pays the fixed penalty before the end of the suspended enforcement period, the cycle shall be returned to that person.
	(4) The provisions of sub-paragraphs (5) to (9) shall have effect if—
	(a) any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2); and
	(b) the fixed penalty has not been paid in accordance with Part III of the 1988 Act before the end of the suspended enforcement period.
	(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), following the conclusion of any proceedings in respect of the alleged offence the cycle shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless the court orders it to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7).
	(6) If the recipient has not given notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence to which the fixed penalty notice relates in the manner specified in the notice, the local authority may make an application to the court for an order that the cycle seized under sub-paragraph (2) shall be forfeited.
	(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), the court—
	(a) by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act committed by cycling; or
	(b) to whom an application for forfeiture is made under sub-paragraph (6),
	may order any cycle produced to the court, and shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence, or as the case may be the alleged offence, to be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
	(8) The court shall not order a cycle to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7) where a person claiming to be the owner of or otherwise interested in it applies to be heard by the court, unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not be made, and in considering whether to make such an order a court shall have regard—
	(a) to the value of the cycle; and
	(b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).
	(9) The court may order forfeiture notwithstanding that the value of the cycle exceeds the maximum penalty for the commission of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act.
	(10) In this paragraph "local authority" means—
	(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council or a London borough council; and
	(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council; and
	"suspended enforcement period" has the meaning ascribed to it under section 52(3)(a) of the 1988 Act (fixed penalty notices)."

Baroness Hanham: This is a simple amendment. One of the powers that the accredited officers of organisations will have is to issue fixed penalty notices for those cycling on the pavement. All I can say is, "Yippee", because we have been waiting for a long time for someone to issue a fixed penalty notice to those who bowl down the pavements and knock people over.
	I am seeking an extension of a power which is also in the Bill to enable those officers to confiscate the bicycle until the fixed penalty notice is paid. We seem to be able to confiscate everything else under the Bill and I am seeking to add bicycles to that power of confiscation. It would make things easier and resolve the problems more quickly. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. In particular, I should like to emphasise how effective confiscation of, for example, hot dog stalls has proved. The local boroughs have found that confiscation is the only sanction that has any effect.
	If the confiscated bicycle has to be transported and stored, presumably the owner will be treated in a similar fashion to a motorist who has his car towed away and will have to pay a small penalty or costs.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendment. I agree that cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and can be dangerous. That is why we are including in the Bill the power for the extended police family, the accreditation scheme, to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling, littering and riding on footpaths. That power is there because those are the kinds of issues which are suitable for the functions and powers of accredited officers to address. However, I think the noble Baroness's amendment goes a little too far.
	As the Committee is aware, we are determined under this part of the Bill to ensure that the community support officers and members of the community safety accreditation schemes are given powers consistent with their training and the public's expectation of their role. I realise that the expectation of their role for the noble Baroness includes taking the bicycle as well as the fixed penalty—I accept that—but we have always been clear that we do not want accredited people such as neighbourhood and street wardens, which is what we are effectively talking about, involved in potentially difficult situations—and putting a bicycle on your back could cause a problem.
	The power to confiscate could mean accredited people coming across resistance from a cyclist who may or may not have dismounted, and could involve a tricycle, which would be somewhat difficult to confiscate. They would not have the powers or the training to deal with that kind of resistance, and we do not want the people acting in this role placed in that kind of situation. That could undermine their credibility.
	This is one of the issues where we have opened up not so much a can of worms but a box of gold—although not in a money sense—which will be good for local communities. The noble Baroness is right: people do want to go a little further. I am delighted to see overwhelming support from the noble Baronesses, which is somewhat in contrast to the speeches made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. That is a pretty sour note to end on and I am sorry about that.

Baroness Hanham: I am tempted to try to extend the confiscation to the dogs, but I shall not. I am hanging on to the bicycles in the hope that, with proper training, we will be able to confer that confiscatory power on these people. I heard what the Minister said. I shall consider it and I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditations]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 255:
	Page 34, line 37, leave out "to that person, if requested to do so" and insert "to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty"

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are back in the business of discussing public confidence. I forgive the Minister for the slight tweak at the end of his previous remarks. We do that kind of thing to each other from time to time. It keeps us awake.
	The Bill provides that if an accredited officer exercises police powers on someone else, he shall show his accreditation to that person to prove that he is who he says he is. The amendment merely expands the scope of that requirement to include others who might be present so that everyone is aware that he is who he says he is. Otherwise, one can imagine the possibility of a secondary fracas arising which might cause a problem. This is a simple amendment. I ask the Minister to think about it. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: If Amendment No. 255 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 255A.

Lord Rooker: In responding, it is worthwhile reminding the noble Lord of the wording of the amendment. It seeks to,
	"insert 'to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty'".
	I shall give a couple of examples of where that may cause difficulty. I freely admit that I do not claim authorship of the examples, but they seem to go to the heart of the amendment. They are definitely extreme examples. However, my note states that they are a good way to test the robustness of the amendments.
	Let us imagine that a community support officer rescues a child from a burning house using a power conferred on him. The amendment requires the community support officer to show his designation to everyone who was present and was affected by the rescue. It could be quite a crowd—the child's family and friends, playmates, neighbours and other passers-by who were witness to the events. It could be disruptive, and logistically difficult, to ensure that they were all shown the designation. Also, would the community support officer be in breach of his or her duty under this amendment if he or she were unable to track down all those who had been present?
	Or let us imagine an accredited person tackling a group of children where one or two of them were smoking and drinking alcohol. If the person had to show his or her accreditation to every member of the group and to any passers-by before being able to seize the tobacco and alcohol, it would fundamentally undermine their effectiveness.
	On that basis, I believe that we have got the balance about right. If a member of the public is happy not to see the accreditation or designation, it seems sensible not to create an extra bureaucratic process that must be gone through. If, on the other hand, they do wish to see the accreditation or designation, then the Bill provides for that. So it is not a question of the public being denied, of the person concerned saying: "Who are you? What is your power? Where is your badge?". That is fair. At present, we do not know what form it will take. It may take the form of a photo identity card, it may take some other form.
	All designated officers—community support officers, detention officers, escort officers and investigating officers—will be uniformed and easily identifiable. They will carry their designation and will be required to show it to the person to whom their actions relate when asked to do so. I believe that that is a fair way of operating.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In view of the first everyday example given by the Minister, will the accredited officer then have to show people the MBE which he received for saving the child from the house?

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. I was tempted to say touché, but then I realised that the Bill would require the person rescuing the child from the fire in the house to show the child his accreditation before he rescued him. We have a little difference between us on the issue, but I am being facetious. The Minister has provided a reasonable explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 255A not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257:
	Page 34, line 39, leave out from "designation" to "35", in line 40 and insert "by a chief officer of police under section 33 or his accreditation under section"
	Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) A Director General may at any time, by notice to a person he has designated as an investigating officer under section 33, modify or withdraw that designation."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 258:
	Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) The decision by the chief officer to modify or withdraw the designation or accreditation shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise."

Lord Dixon-Smith: The aim of the amendment is to ensure that, in the event of a chief officer withdrawing a designation from an individual or a firm, there can be no kickback to him for so doing. That seems a sensible precaution.
	The same principle applies to Amendment No. 259, which would leave out the question of liability. It would remove the possibility of the employer of an accredited person being found liable for, shall we say, a misaction by one of his employees when that employee was using police powers.
	Both amendments are sensible. Although we covered the points raised in the second amendment earlier to some extent, I hope that the Minister will consider them. They do not seem unreasonable additions to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: Throughout today's debate and a good part of our earlier debates, it has been stressed that we are putting the role into the hands of the chief officers. It is their decision whether to go down this road. They will be able to remove accreditation and it will be their decision to do so.
	A code of practice will be issued to chief officers covering the exercise of their powers to modify or withdraw designations and accreditations. Where they are accrediting employees of another employer, it will also include guidance on consultation with that employer to ensure that they are fully informed of any proposal to modify or withdraw. Designated persons will be employees of the police authority. Accredited persons will be employees of the employer who has entered into arrangements with the chief officer. Employment law will apply if designated or accredited persons feel that they have been ill treated in the course of their employment.
	Overall, it is probably right that the Bill should not give a right of appeal against removal or modification. That power should lie with the chief officer's discretion. Obviously, it cannot be done unreasonably. There has to be a reason. There will be a code of practice to govern such circumstances.
	It may look a little unfair that there is no right of appeal, but the initial designation and accreditation is done not in a prescriptive fashion, but by an enabling power at the police officer's wish and decision and not at that of anybody else. The policing of an area is the responsibility of the chief officer. If they decide to change the rules and remove or modify designation or accreditation, it should be up to them. They will, of course, be subject to other rules, such as the reasonableness test and employment law in other respects, but we should not interfere by putting in a right of appeal as is envisaged.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. The amendment specifically states that accreditation
	"shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise".
	My amendment therefore seems to express the Minister's desire, and there seems to be nothing between us. The Minister even seems inadvertently to have agreed my amendment. It is an interesting situation. I think that, with that happy thought, we shall both go away and study the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 259 to 261 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 262:
	Page 35, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of an employee of a Service Authority, conduct by such a member in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 33 shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment; and, in the case of a tort, the Service Authority shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Removal of restriction on powers conferred on traffic wardens]:
	Clause 37 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 263:
	After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
	"ADDITIONAL POWERS OF TRAFFIC WARDENS: ABNORMAL LOADS
	In section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens), after subsection (2)(d), there shall be inserted—
	"(e) any order made under section 1 or 6 of this Act relating to the movement of an abnormal load where "abnormal load" means a load, including the carrying vehicle, whose weights or dimensions—
	(i) exceed those within regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or
	(ii) are such that regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 require movement of the load to be notified to the chief officer of police.""

Earl Attlee: I declare an interest. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and close to other associations, and I operate my own abnormal load vehicle.
	I am a little surprised that we did not debate Clause 37, and I was worried that the Committee might not accept it. Later, I shall move amendments on the escorting of abnormal loads, a task currently undertaken by the police.
	Sometimes during the movement of an abnormal load, it is necessary for the operator to request what are termed "special facilities". They entail the police, and only the police, facilitating and authorising the driver to go right at a "keep left" sign, the wrong way up a one-way street, the wrong way around a roundabout, or to drive for a distance on the wrong side of the road. It could well be that, on a 30-mile movement, special facilities are required at only one location, which is often at the start or the end of a journey. Unfortunately, however, a police escort is required for the whole journey. That is clearly not an effective or good use of police resources.
	Can the Minister say whether Clause 37 as drafted provides the necessary powers to authorise special facilities, or is an additional clause—such as the one I propose in Amendment No. 263—required? It would be desirable for traffic wardens to have these powers regardless of whether my later amendments find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that Clause 37 might disappear. However, we have broad sympathy with the intended aim of Amendment No. 263. I understand that he has discussed the matter with my right honourable friend John Denham, who is the Minister of State responsible for the Bill. Like the noble Earl and ACPO, we should like to see a reduction in police involvement in such work. We are actively considering how to ensure that we have the best arrangements for escorting abnormal loads.
	I understand that, today, my right honourable friend met ACPO representatives. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not think that the amendment is necessary or the best way of proceeding. It would be inappropriate to specify in detail what regulations must be made with regard to one issue but not others.
	I did not address the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill. However, I refer to traffic wardens and the power to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules such as driving round roundabouts the wrong way. In my years of driving I have once or twice observed instances when it was fairly obvious that a heavy load was not going to negotiate a roundabout by going round it the right way. Yet it was fairly obvious that if those loads had taken the wrong way round the roundabout they would have negotiated it easily. However, I was not in a position to summon the police to sort out those situations. Traffic wardens could direct those situations as part of their general power to direct traffic. The powers to direct traffic are contained in Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which states that a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. Section 37 of that Act states that pedestrians must comply with directions given by a constable. Those powers are applied to traffic wardens by virtue of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
	However, I come to the rub. If traffic wardens were to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules on a regular basis, there would be significant implications for additional training requirements and so on. I hope that there is some scope on the matter as regards the discussions that are taking place between the Minister and ACPO. We have general sympathy with the points that the noble Earl has made. I hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory solution to the clear problem which he has identified.

Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Earl replies, will the Minister tell us in plain English what extra powers traffic wardens get under Section 37? I thought that they had a lot of extra powers to give directions to cyclists and others.

Lord Rooker: I have a note which is about 50 words long. However, the point is that the powers to direct traffic are contained in the Road Traffic Act. Under Section 35 a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. That power was given to traffic wardens under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, traffic wardens have the power to give a driver an order with which he must comply. Indeed, they also have the power to give pedestrians an order with which they must comply. To that extent their powers are exactly the same as those of a constable. Traffic wardens can tell a driver to stop, go right, go left or start. I imagine that that power would get most people out of a mess.

Lord Bradshaw: I wish to be clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 are extended in Clause 37. I simply inquired whether the extension was sufficient to meet the point the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made or whether further extension was necessary.

Lord Rooker: I shall try to give a little more detail. The powers I have mentioned were given to traffic wardens but in some cases they can be exercised only in certain circumstances. Section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that traffic wardens can exercise general police power to stop vehicles under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 only in a limited range of circumstances. That restricts the functions they can carry out. It means that generally police officers must be employed in undertakings where it may be necessary to stop vehicles, even though their powers may not be required.
	Clause 37, which we passed, removes that restriction by deleting the reference to Section 163 as one of the enactments under which powers can only be used in certain circumstances. That means that traffic wardens will have the same power to stop vehicles as that currently held by police officers. That removal of an unnecessary bar to the type of powers traffic wardens can undertake will enable their use in a wider range of circumstances as deemed appropriate locally and will thereby reduce demands on the police where the only additional power required is the power to stop. That will free up police officers who currently have to supervise such things as vehicle emission checks. My briefing then states:
	"I beg to move that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill".
	I think that the noble Earl has got the message from that. I hope that it is a good explanation of his in some ways legitimate desire. I wish that I had spoken to Clause 37 after all.

Earl Attlee: The Minister is not the only one!
	I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The amendment specifically examined the powers of traffic wardens in order to facilitate private escorting. I shall move Amendment No. 333 at a later stage, which will give the Minister an opportunity to give a more informed response as a result of our discussion on this amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38 [Power to amend Chapter 1]:
	[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 265:
	Page 36, line 4, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith: The clause is one of those glorious Henry VIII clauses that we see with monotonous regularity in legislation emanating from the Government. It will give the Secretary of State by order the power to, "modify the provisions of"—in this case—
	"Schedule 4 by . . . amending or repealing any provision of that Schedule",
	or by,
	"adding powers or duties to the powers and duties specified in that Schedule as applicable by a designation . . . The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 5 so as to authorise the conferring or imposition, on an accredited person, of powers and duties in addition to those contained in Schedule 5 . . . An order under this section may make provision for such modifications of any enactment (whenever passed) as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the exercise or performance of any power or duty which becomes capable of being conferred or imposed by virtue of an order under this section".
	That is a glorious mélange of facility to amend primary legislation by regulation. We see that periodically. One could just about record the fact that this is a necessary statutory inclusion and that my objection is a necessary statutory objection.
	I accept that when one finally gets to the end of the clause, it states:
	"The Secretary of State shall not make an order containing . . . any provision authorised by this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before Parliament and approved".
	That is frightfully kind of the Government! We give the Secretary of State powers—I stress that it is Parliament that authorises that, not the Government—to amend primary legislation with a slip of paper that we more or less whip through on the nod. This may be deemed to be a reasonable procedure—it has been used many times previously. Each time that I have come across it, I have objected to it and will continue to do so. It may be for the administrative and legislative convenience of the Government but I still do not think that it is justified. If there is primary legislation, it should take primary legislation to amend it. That fairly simple point is our objection to the clause.

Lord Rooker: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord did not mention that in its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment whatever on the order-making power contained in the clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. I rest my case.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I had to leave the Minister something to say! He is quite right, but that does not mean that one has to accept or agree with the report. I hear what he said and I shall not oppose the Question whether clause stand part.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendments Nos. 266 and 267:
	Page 36, line 26, after "police" insert "and by Directors General".
	Page 36, line 31, after "police" insert "or a Director General".
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 39, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Bradshaw: I believe that this matter returns to the discussions we had about Part 1 of the Bill. We received assurances from the Minister that he will come back to us on that point. But there are issues in the clause we do not like. We want there to be a requirement to consult the police authorities which will have community support officers, and in future we want that to be a permissive power. I shall not go on at length about that at this time of night, but we wish formally to oppose Clause 39 because we believe that it will be subject to amendment at a later stage.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hope that at this hour of the evening I shall not be held to be unduly suspiciously minded in asking the Minister what is behind the clause. Rightly, he has told us on many occasions during the course of debate today that the employment, for example, of the community support officers will be completely under the control and in the hands of the chief officer of police of the area concerned. Then we find that Clause 39 suddenly seems to give a great deal of power back to the centre. It states that:
	"The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the exercise and performance by chief officers of police of their powers and duties under this Chapter",
	and that the police, in discharging any function under this chapter,
	"shall have regard to the code".
	I ask the Minister whether that means that the Secretary of State may, if he wishes, issue a code of practice which states that the chief officer of police shall exercise his powers and duties under this chapter by the employment, for example, of community policing. We were told that it is clear that it is to be left to the local chief officers and local areas to decide whether that is suitable for their purposes. Yet it seems to me that the clause, as it stands, gives powers to the Secretary of State to make orders which could direct chief officers to employ such people when they may not necessarily wish to do so.
	As I said, I am probably being unduly suspicious. But I have a slightly suspicious mind when it comes to this Government appearing, on the one hand, to convey power to other people but, in fact, bringing more and more power into the centre.

Lord Elton: I associate myself with those remarks, which chime very closely with what I said during debate on an earlier amendment about exercising power from the centre by means of direction. This is being done by means of guidance. It is the same wolf in a different sheep's clothing.

Lord Tope: In our earlier debates on parts of the Bill the Minister was emollient—I believe that that was the word often used—about consultation with the APA and ACPO. Should this clause be agreed to, and should the Secretary of State be empowered to issue a code of practice, there is nothing in the clause that requires him to consult in any way the APA or ACPO. Can the Minister show that he is still emollient and assure us that, if the clause remains, he will return with a requirement that the Secretary of State will consult the ACPO and the APA before issuing the code of practice?

Lord Rooker: I am a naturally suspicious person, but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the code of practice would not allow the Secretary of State in effect to order chief officers to operate the community support officers scheme. That would be contrary to provisions on the face of the Bill in previous clauses. The code of practice, which I referred to in passing on one or two other amendments, cannot be used to do that. It contains, for example, advice on protective clothing and equipment and on making a criminal record check before persons are designated. That is the meat of the code of practice. Its purpose is not to undermine or overturn what is in the earlier part of the Bill. The criteria to satisfy the test in Clauses 33 and 35 concern the capability of persons to carry out certain functions and standards of training.
	The purpose of the code is to make the scheme operational, not to make the whole country the same. I suppose that the code will have to state that the badge for accredited officers must be of a certain size and colour. The purpose of the code is not to reverse fundamentally what we have discussed.
	I have no problem with consultation, and shall take that away for consideration. It seems to me inconceivable that my right honourable friend would issue a code of practice without consulting with ACPO or the police authorities. However, we shall take that away for consideration.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I thank the Minister for giving me the assurance that he did on the way in which the code of practice will operate. I accept his account of what he says he will do. I have nothing further to add on the clause.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Offences against designated and accredited persons etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 268:
	Page 36, line 33, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Dixon-Smith: We were fascinated by this part of the law. I can well understand that if one assaults an accredited person, one is committing an offence. However, one wonders why one needs to create yet another offence of assault. My legal eagles tell me that there is a well- established criminal law against assault enacted in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I have difficulty in understanding why that would not apply if someone committed an assault against an accredited person. This is a neat, probing amendment to see why we need to have yet another specific assault law when assault is already well covered. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am not sure that this issue is covered. I believe that we need this part of Clause 40 and it would be a mistake to remove it. Everyone acting in an official capacity within the police service should be able to do so without fear for their own safety. Where they are exercising police powers, however high or low such powers may be, they are right to have a reasonable expectation that an attack on them would be treated with the same seriousness as an attack on a police officer. That is why we do not want to accept Amendment No. 268. It follows, therefore, that this clause is an important part of the Bill.
	Aside from the offence of assaulting designated or accredited persons, the clause sets out various other offences relating to obstructing or impersonating such persons. That is not an unimportant point. There will be more uniformed people on the streets of this country at community level. It is important that people with other purposes in mind do not abuse that. We must ensure that impersonating designated or accredited persons is an offence. That parallels the provisions for assaulting, obstructing or impersonating police officers contained in Sections 89 and 90 of the Police Act 1996. Not only should there be protection for support staff; there must be appropriate penalties where others seek to deceive by suggesting that they are designated or accredited persons. There is also an important safeguard for the public in that it is also an offence for a designated or accredited person to make any statement or to act in any way that falsely suggests that he has powers over and above those that he has. That itself is not unimportant, given that we have said throughout that chief officers have a menu from which to choose.
	Chief officers will choose which powers accredited persons and community support officers will operate. They will vary in different areas. It would be wrong and an offence for accredited and designated persons who feel that they should have powers not given them by the chief constable to claim that they have those powers. I ask the noble Lord to think twice before pressing his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister seems to assume that the amendment relates to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. In fact, Amendment No. 268 simply deals with assaults on accredited persons. I am surprised if we are not creating specific offences to deal with assaults—as earlier police Acts have done in respect of police officers. The reason is almost certainly that each time that was done, it raised the level of penalty. In light of the Minister's explanation, which I shall study, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clause 41 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Office of Communications Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.